How much of the lyrics in popular music are genuine?

[boombox4]

Station management needs to be involved with sales to make sure everyone on staff continues to get paid. They don't get involved in music, picking songs, or anything like that. There is a completely different staff that deals with music issues. Different people have different areas of expertise. But the top management shouldn't be listening to music. They should be dealing with the community, spending time with other local businessmen, attending community meetings, and representing their business.

Points well taken. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that most FM radio is making its living by providing music for the masses, in order to get the advertising revenues from agencies that want to reach those masses. That is why the music they play is researched so heavily. How many times have I heard radio experts on RD say something like "songs like _____________ (fill in the appropriate title) cause tune-out".

Why would they care about a song causing tune-out? Because the music itself it part of the money-making machine, obviously.

Now, whether a poorly written song matters, I can't say. Some of the pop hits I've heard recently sound like someone tossed a bunch of slang and cliches into a computer, hooked up their synthesizer and drum machine to it, pressed a button and the computer then recycled it, churning it all out like a meat grinder. Add some autotune, and shazam! You've got a hit.

Other hits actually sound like someone took the time to write something pertinent or meaningful in some way.

Either way, there obviously is something to the art of producing radio-friendly (or internet friendly) music.

 

[CTListener]

What bothers me about music discussions here is that so many posters seem to be trying to play "gotcha" with the radio professionals. We've all been told by several of the pros just how songs are tested, put in rotation, become recurrents, are dayparted, are or are not found suitable for play years later, etc. Yet still the same questions come: "What about this song?" "What about that artist?" "Song X was really popular in (name of city) in (some long-ago year) but I never hear it on (classic hits/throwback station), but (that station) plays awful Song Y, which nobody likes. Why?" Yes, those questions about music have to do with radio, but the answers are always the same and are highly unlikely to ever change.

As for discussion of songwriting, why this or that song wasn't a single, what some artist's best or worst songs are -- that has nothing to do with radio and would be best served, IMO, with a separate forum for general discussion of music. One could even be set up for each genre. But I'm not Frank (although some say I can be too frank) and, frankly, it's his decision.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Station management needs to be involved with sales to make sure everyone on staff continues to get paid. They don't get involved in music, picking songs, or anything like that. There is a completely different staff that deals with music issues. Different people have different areas of expertise. But the top management shouldn't be listening to music. They should be dealing with the community, spending time with other local businessmen, attending community meetings, and representing their business.

Not necessarily. Many of my most successful stations were those that I either owned or tightly managed. I focused on programming and promotion and knew that it was easier to sell #1 than #10 or #20...

I was part of music selection, designed promotions, designed clocks and rotations, hired jocks, wrote promos and liners and all the other stuff a PD does.

I hired good sellers, but did the agency presentations myself (one market had over 100 local agencies) but did not do the serving calls.

I met artists at the airport, was in the green room at concerts and went out for street promotions. In one case, I had four of the top 5 stations in a 45 station market and we were way ahead of everyone in sales, too.

I just put the product first as I am nowhere as good a seller as I am a programmer. I also did not let sales increase spot loads, either.

I think one of the issues today with radio is that managers are glorified sellers and don't understand how to improve the product.

 

[TheBigA]

I was part of music selection, designed promotions, designed clocks and rotations, hired jocks, wrote promos and liners and all the other stuff a PD does.

I found that it's hard to keep good programmers when the boss wants to do that job. Especially if the boss is also the owner.

Quite often the owner who makes programming decisions will do so for financial reasons rather than for musical reasons. Stations with the best ratings are not always the ones that appeal to music lovers. He will use research and financials to justify musical decisions. If you get someone divorced from the financials who programs strictly based on his love of music, you'll get a very different radio station.

 

[michael hagerty]

What bothers me about music discussions here is that so many posters seem to be trying to play "gotcha" with the radio professionals. We've all been told by several of the pros just how songs are tested, put in rotation, become recurrents, are dayparted, are or are not found suitable for play years later, etc. Yet still the same questions come: "What about this song?" "What about that artist?" "Song X was really popular in (name of city) in (some long-ago year) but I never hear it on (classic hits/throwback station), but (that station) plays awful Song Y, which nobody likes. Why?" Yes, those questions about music have to do with radio, but the answers are always the same and are highly unlikely to ever change.

The "gotcha" questions are fatiguing but less offensive than the half-remembered details on how well a record did, or how it ever got played in the first place (which usually involves a conspiracy between record companies to spend more on payola than the record would earn and radio stations to deliberately play songs everyone hates).

Again, there are Facebook groups for that.

 

[michael hagerty]

Not necessarily. Many of my most successful stations were those that I either owned or tightly managed. I focused on programming and promotion and knew that it was easier to sell #1 than #10 or #20...

I was part of music selection, designed promotions, designed clocks and rotations, hired jocks, wrote promos and liners and all the other stuff a PD does.

I hired good sellers, but did the agency presentations myself (one market had over 100 local agencies) but did not do the serving calls.

I met artists at the airport, was in the green room at concerts and went out for street promotions. In one case, I had four of the top 5 stations in a 45 station market and we were way ahead of everyone in sales, too.

I just put the product first as I am nowhere as good a seller as I am a programmer. I also did not let sales increase spot loads, either.

I think one of the issues today with radio is that managers are glorified sellers and don't understand how to improve the product.

This.

There are two schools of management thought when it comes to the audience---one far more prevalent than the other.

School one---which Bill Drake adhered to---was that the audience is your customer. Keep them satisfied and you'll have a lot of them. And then you can charge advertisers for limited access to them.

It's kinda like your favorite magazine. They're writing for you---they want you to keep subscribing. They make money selling the subscriber list to people who want to sell you stuff, but they don't make the mistake of thinking the list buyers are the customers they're writing for.

The second, and more prevalent school, is that the advertiser is the customer and the listener is the product. And that's what gets you radio that's focused on sales at the expense of audience-building and maintenance.

 

[Don CT]

What bothers me about music discussions here is that so many posters seem to be trying to play "gotcha" with the radio professionals. We've all been told by several of the pros just how songs are tested, put in rotation, become recurrents, are dayparted, are or are not found suitable for play years later, etc. Yet still the same questions come: "What about this song?" "What about that artist?" "Song X was really popular in (name of city) in (some long-ago year) but I never hear it on (classic hits/throwback station), but (that station) plays awful Song Y, which nobody likes. Why?" Yes, those questions about music have to do with radio, but the answers are always the same and are highly unlikely to ever change.

As for discussion of songwriting, why this or that song wasn't a single, what some artist's best or worst songs are -- that has nothing to do with radio and would be best served, IMO, with a separate forum for general discussion of music. One could even be set up for each genre. But I'm not Frank (although some say I can be too frank) and, frankly, it's his decision.

I’d like to propose a music history section. Maybe have billboard charted songs or history of artists. It’s radio related but really a separate part of the industry.

 

[Miss Tuned]

At the end of the day, the bottom line is the bottom line.

I don't want to sit there at a radio station that I think is brilliant, plays a huge range of tracks, goes deep into forgotten 90s songs, has a complicated and esoteric format that is hard to sell and then at the end of the month my salary doesn't go into my bank account because the station rates poorly and hasn't had enough sales.

I'd rather be at a station that I wouldn't want to listen to on my own time, that rotates the same 40 hits day after day, but is popular with the target demo, advertisers understand the format and who's listening, and consequently it bills enough to make payroll at the end of every single month.

The people working in radio want to make radio that sells because they enjoy eating food and living in a house and driving a car - so that's what gets onto the air.

 

[TheBigA]

School one---which Bill Drake adhered to---was that the audience is your customer. Keep them satisfied and you'll have a lot of them. And then you can charge advertisers for limited access to them.

That worked well 50 years ago when you had loyal listeners. Today's listeners aren't loyal to a platform. They're loyal to a band or an artist or their personal taste. They want what they want, and they want it cheap and easy. That's how listener decisions are made. Play what I want, not what tests well.

Then you have the problem of advertisers. Right now, even if you deliver good ratings, that doesn't mean you can raise the rates or depend on advertiser support. Rush Limbaugh had a loyal audience, but lots of advertisers didn't buy his shows. Too controversial.

So radio stations get hammered and attacked from both sides. The listeners say they're greedy, and the advertisers say they're not effective.

 

[gr8oldies]

This.

There are two schools of management thought when it comes to the audience---one far more prevalent than the other.

School one---which Bill Drake adhered to---was that the audience is your customer. Keep them satisfied and you'll have a lot of them. And then you can charge advertisers for limited access to them.

It's kinda like your favorite magazine. They're writing for you---they want you to keep subscribing. They make money selling the subscriber list to people who want to sell you stuff, but they don't make the mistake of thinking the list buyers are the customers they're writing for.

The second, and more prevalent school, is that the advertiser is the customer and the listener is the product. And that's what gets you radio that's focused on sales at the expense of audience-building and maintenance.

It's either sell the programming or program the sales.

 

[TheBigA]

The people working in radio want to make radio that sells because they enjoy eating food and living in a house and driving a car - so that's what gets onto the air.

I agree. I was friends with a popular morning man who was promoted to PD, then OM, then GM. The last gig didn't last long because his heart was in programming, and he couldn't keep his eyes on the money. He kept wanting to do his old job. That didn't sit well with the CEO.

There are hard decisions to make in business. They require the factual side of the brain. Music decisions are made from the heart. Yes there is a factual statistical way to make music decisions, and we talk about them here all the time. But we make those factual decisions to achieve financial goals, not for artistic goals. There are people who can do both. I watched the head of a major record label sign an artist. It was his decision. He wanted music that moved him, and a deal that made business sense. He signed the artist, but dropped him after one record. At the end of the day, the business side won.

 

[Kelly A]

What bothers me about music discussions here is that so many posters seem to be trying to play "gotcha" with the radio professionals. We've all been told by several of the pros just how songs are tested, put in rotation, become recurrents, are dayparted, are or are not found suitable for play years later, etc. Yet still the same questions come: "What about this song?" "What about that artist?" "Song X was really popular in (name of city) in (some long-ago year) but I never hear it on (classic hits/throwback station), but (that station) plays awful Song Y, which nobody likes. Why?" Yes, those questions about music have to do with radio, but the answers are always the same and are highly unlikely to ever change.

I wouldn't say the seemingly never ending line of questions as it relates to radio and music are intended as a gotcha, but more in an attempt to bend an answer closer to their own beliefs on how radio and music interact. The member I think we're talking about here is clearly interested in how radio programming works/worked, but only if the response validates his personal tastes in music. If the answer doesn't align, he asks the same question a different way.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I found that it's hard to keep good programmers when the boss wants to do that job. Especially if the boss is also the owner.

If you are clear at the offset that you are hiring an assitant PD or a co-programmer, it is not hard at all.

Quite often the owner who makes programming decisions will do so for financial reasons rather than for musical reasons. Stations with the best ratings are not always the ones that appeal to music lovers.

If your station is a business, then it is going to program for the best financial opportunity. If you own a station and hire a PD, you will be asking them to follow the format and financial plan you establish. In most cases, you know the format and will hire a PD who will bring dimension and experience to that project.

He will use research and financials to justify musical decisions.

And if they hires a PD, he or she will tell that person what target audience and financial objectives they have. Music decisions will be based on that focus.

If you get someone divorced from the financials who programs strictly based on his love of music, you'll get a very different radio station.

And in commercial radio, we program for the audience, not for the personal taste of a single person who wants to impose that concept on the general population.

Example. When I worked to determine the new format for a failing FM in Buenos Aires, a market a bit bigger than New York City, we tested over 25 format ideas using personal interviews and test pods. We came up with two overwhelming choices. The first one only appealed to lower income groups (in developing nations, ratings are more based on income than on age), so we picked the second choice.

The result? #1 in first month, averaging around a 20 share for the next 6 years and generating what I believe to be the highest AQH audience in the Western Hemisphere. I was in control of the programming, the music scheduling, airchecks, promotions and all the rest and I don't even particularly care for the music. What I knew was what listeners wanted and we gave it to them better than anyone.

If I want to listen to my favorite songs, I'll stream them.

 

[Kelly A]

There are two schools of management thought when it comes to the audience---one far more prevalent than the other.

School one---which Bill Drake adhered to---was that the audience is your customer. Keep them satisfied and you'll have a lot of them. And then you can charge advertisers for limited access to them.

And that was a valid formula back in Bill Drake's day. Now in a world of more competition from subscriptions, streaming on an international basis, social media, and advertisers bending to the digital ad model of 'impressions' not straight ratings, old rules of the that game have been turned upside down.

The second, and more prevalent school, is that the advertiser is the customer and the listener is the product. And that's what gets you radio that's focused on sales at the expense of audience-building and maintenance.

I would argue it's always been about some form of sales. Since a lot of government grants and funding has disappeared, that included public broadcasting too. What a lot of folks don't understand, is a station can have decent ratings, but potentially ratings not within the demographic advertisers want to reach. In essence, you're missing the target. That's a big problem. Either that, or be in a smaller community without ratings, receive positive feedback from the community, but struggle financially because you just don't have access to national agency ad dollars, so you're stuck relying on local clients who only want to spend .50 a spot, because they're already spending that on Facebook ads.
As someone with first hand experience, it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay in business with that last example.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The second, and more prevalent school, is that the advertiser is the customer and the listener is the product. And that's what gets you radio that's focused on sales at the expense of audience-building and maintenance.

And that is the school of the GSMs, GMs and sellers who have suits that look like they have to plug them in at night to recharge them.

Today, the debt of some of the companies has forced quick revenue fixes to jeopardizing programming for the audience and not for the clients. And, more than ever we have management with no product experience. The sellers hear too many comments from clients and none from listeners...

 

[TheBigA]

And in commercial radio, we program for the audience, not for the personal taste of a single person who wants to impose that concept on the general population.

As I said, sooner or later the business side wins out. Someone has to make sure everyone gets paid. That person is usually the GM.

How much time that person spends listening to music is his business. But if the money isn't top priority, he'll be gone soon.

Today, the debt of some of the companies has forced quick revenue fixes to jeopardizing programming for the audience and not for the clients. And, more than ever we have management with no product experience.

That would be excusable if they were successful in handling the debt. But they aren't. So they're running companies that are losing at both business and art. That makes them total failures.

 

[TheBigA]

Points well taken. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that most FM radio is making its living by providing music for the masses, in order to get the advertising revenues from agencies that want to reach those masses.

But radio isn't in the music business. No one in radio makes the music they play. It's a partnership. The theory is great music makes great radio. But the point I was commenting on is that management should listen to music. My view is there are other people on staff who do that. Quite often, those people don't get the headlines, because the trades focus on the CEOs. Typically the CEOs talk about profits and EBITA, not art & culture. So outsiders think everyone in radio only thinks about profit and EBITA, and that's not true. There are a lot of people in radio who can speak very knowledgably on the entire history of music in multiple genres. Some may know more about music than radio.

 

[DavidEduardo]

That would be excusable if they were successful in handling the debt. But they aren't. So they're running companies that are losing at both business and art. That makes them total failures.

The first 5 years I was in radio it was for the "art". An all jazz FM from 1959 to 1963, and we could have done the 1962 commercial logs in 1959, as there were no ads, ever. But we had high praise from the artists and the jazz community.

 

[DavidEduardo]

But radio isn't in the music business.

But neither was a music store back when we had those. A music store had to stock the right songs in the right amounts to satisfy customer demand. But they did not make the music nor create the tastes. They were a medium between artists and record buyers, just as radio is such a medium between artists / labels and listeners.

No one in radio makes the music they play. It's a partnership.

Not really. It is an entertainment medium that delivers audio content listeners want to hear. Often, even with music, it is more than that: Seacrest, Bones, Charlemagne.

But the point I was commenting on is that management should listen to music. My view is there are other people on staff who do that.

Not always. In the case of many stations, particularly in medium and smaller markets, management makes the final decision on formats and implementation.

Quite often, those people don't get the headlines, because the trades focus on the CEOs. Typically the CEOs talk about profits and EBITA, not art & culture. So outsiders think everyone in radio only thinks about profit and EBITA, and that's not true. There are a lot of people in radio who can speak very knowledgably on the entire history of music in multiple genres. Some may know more about music than radio.

But in major markets, the overwhelming majority of managers are former GSMs and sellers. Their knowledge of music is based on personal taste, which is just enough to make them dangerous

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

But neither was a music store back when we had those. A music store had to stock the right songs in the right amounts to satisfy customer demand. But they did not make the music nor create the tastes. They were a medium between artists and record buyers, just as radio is such a medium between artists / labels and listeners.

Not really. It is an entertainment medium that delivers audio content listeners want to hear. Often, even with music, it is more than that: Seacrest, Bones, Charlemagne.

Not always. In the case of many stations, particularly in medium and smaller markets, management makes the final decision on formats and implementation.

But in major markets, the overwhelming majority of managers are former GSMs and sellers. Their knowledge of music is based on personal taste, which is just enough to make them dangerous

Let me clarify. When I talked about mgmt. knowing music, I mean the program director or music librarian. I think of those positions as mgmt. Maybe they are not. But I didn’t mean the GM or the station owner or the executives at a big corp. like Audacy or Cumulus. I understand that they have other important duties.