• 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

Is the Animals' "C.C. Rider" too much of a Burdon for the oldies stations?

charts explanation- again

David Eduardo explained it very well (and has many times). For decades, songs hit the charts for many reasons OTHER THAN they were popular with listeners. Let's see: payola, favors for fave record reps, promotional consideration, the PD or a jock liked the song. The list of bogus ways songs crept up the charts is a long one and charts cannot be depended on as reliable.

On top of that- what was big in 1966 isn't necessarily in demand in 2005. And, no, just playing it again won't make it more in-demand.

>
> Yeah why don't Oldies stations use the charts? I have a
> Whitburn book and there are some tunes that I haven't even
> heard of ever.
>
> BTW: I have researched Top 40 station surveys and the same
> goes for that. I find myself asking...what happened to
> these records? I should be familiar with these?
 
Re: Animals' "C.C. Rider"

>
> > [From time to time we receive phone calls at our
> > house from what I assume are radio station employees. A
> > voice tells us that if we listen to WXYZ between 4 and 6
> > p.m. on Wednesday, our name will be entered in a drawing
> for
> > $1000. Now THERE'S a listener base that I'd want to spend
>
> > my advertising dollars on!]
>
>

[Who cares why a person listens? If they are listening, they
> hear the ads that are on the staiton.]

*******************************************************************


And it creates inflated listener numbers (ratings) that won't be there next time, AFTER I've spent my advertising dollars based on those numbers!
 
Re: Smacky Tune?

> "C.C. Rider" is an old-time drug tune.

And all this time I thought it was about a girl... /images/icons/blush.gif

ixnay
 
Re: Animals' "C.C. Rider"

>
> And it creates inflated listener numbers (ratings) that
> won't be there next time, AFTER I've spent my advertising
> dollars based on those numbers!
>

In other words, businesses and products should not advertise? Staitons do ongoing promotion to retain or grow audience. Just as Coke advertises a product everyone knows and has tried.
 
> > > Why doesn't it count? Non-coms are rated and feed from the
> > > same 100 share pool commercial stations dig from.
> >
> > In this case I say it doesn't count because this particular
> > college station (and some others) couldn't care less about
> > their ratings in the metropolitan areas that their signal
> > happens to serve. While it's true that they are rated, it's
> > completely irrelevant to them, so ratings aren't a factor in
> > how they program.
> >
> So, what you are saying is that they have no interest in
> getting listeners. Nice. And some folks complain about
> "corporate radio" and here is a staiton that does not care
> if anyone listens.

Well, they may care if a small clique of fellow students and a few others who think what they play is cool are listening, but they've cancelled some of their most popular, highest rated programs in the surrounding metropolitan listening area if the student management doesn't happen to think that they're cool enough for them (mostly shows hosted by older non-student volunteers). With an all-volunteer staff, overhead is low. They can afford to lose some listener donations at fundraising time in order for them to feed their egos by programming to their own personal tastes.
 
Re: Animals' "C.C. Rider"

> And what about the original Pop hit version of "CC Rider" by
> Chuck Willis?

Actually, it goes back much farther than that as a blues tune. It's not clear exactly where it came from, some credit it to Memphis Minnie in 1930, but even her version may have been derived from elsewhere.
 
Re: Animals'

> > [And it creates inflated listener numbers (ratings) that
> > won't be there next time, AFTER I've spent my advertising
> > dollars based on those numbers!]
> >
>
> [In other words, businesses and products should not
> advertise? Staitons do ongoing promotion to retain or grow
> audience. Just as Coke advertises a product everyone knows
> and has tried.]


Earlier in this thread you suggested that the Billboard charts could have been manipulated, and therefore couldn't be trusted. I'm simply saying that radio does the same thing with their audiences, for ratings purposes.



<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TheFonz on 09/21/05 03:27 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Animals'

> > > [And it creates inflated listener numbers (ratings) that
>
> > > won't be there next time, AFTER I've spent my
> advertising
> > > dollars based on those numbers!]
> > >
> >
> > [In other words, businesses and products should not
> > advertise? Staitons do ongoing promotion to retain or
> grow
> > audience. Just as Coke advertises a product everyone knows
>
> > and has tried.]
>
>
> Earlier in this thread you suggested that the Billboard
> charts could have been manipulated, and therefore couldn't
> be trusted. I'm simply saying that radio does the same
> thing with their audiences, for ratings purposes.
>

Actually, they do not. Radio ratings are not like record charts, which were influenced by illicit dealings with retailers, etc. Stations constantly promote to keep audience levels up, just as newspapers run circulation campaigns. This is called "promotion" or "advertising" and is ongoing. Once contest is not going to change the ratings enough to affect the value of advertising, since most buyers who use ratings look at two to four book averages.
 
Re: charts explanation- again

> David Eduardo explained it very well (and has many times).
> For decades, songs hit the charts for many reasons OTHER
> THAN they were popular with listeners. Let's see: payola,
> favors for fave record reps, promotional consideration, the
> PD or a jock liked the song. The list of bogus ways songs
> crept up the charts is a long one and charts cannot be
> depended on as reliable.
>
> On top of that- what was big in 1966 isn't necessarily in
> demand in 2005. And, no, just playing it again won't make
> it more in-demand.
>So if the charts are no indication of success, why are The Beatles considered successful? And Elvis for that matter. I believe it is consultants and programmers who killed oldies radio as we know it. And these same people are giving us the JACK FM genre.
> >
> > Yeah why don't Oldies stations use the charts? I have a
> > Whitburn book and there are some tunes that I haven't even
>
> > heard of ever.
> >
> > BTW: I have researched Top 40 station surveys and the
> same
> > goes for that. I find myself asking...what happened to
> > these records? I should be familiar with these?
>
 
A hit is a hit was a hit may not be a hit now

OK charts don't tell you the whole story. Sometimes it helps to have lived through the songs, that is, if you were a listener to radio when they played the songs as currents, then you WILL have a different perspective. Sure, I remember songs that charted high and thought they were stiffs back then. Some of them are still played today by oldies stations. Because I am just a majority of one, if I didn't like it then, I don't like it now. But, if I liked it then does not necessarily mean that I like it today.

Can I make the analogy of a good movie?? "Casablanca" was a fantastic movie in 1942 (I wasn't alive when it was released) and it is a fantastic movie today. Same goes for "Gone With the Wind", "Bridge Over River Kwai", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "Dr Strangelove" to name a few. Still love them today. Never saw any of them in a theater, saw them all on TV. Only thing different about them today is the acting back then was different from today's style of acting and makes them seem very dated, but I can still enjoy watching them.

And some old movies that were considered great back then, may have even won an Academy Award, when viewed today seem very campy, corny, and may even border on being a cult classic, surely not the intention of the makers of the film. Today those kind of movies are the "stiffs", the kind you may only find on Turner Classic Movie channel.

Relate that to today's "Greatest Hits" (oldies) stations. They won't play what they consider stiffs. And some of us may like those stiffs, but we are in the extreme minority.

Elvis and the Beatles--- are reduced to just a handful of titles these days, especially Elvis. When's the last time you heard "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You" or "Hard Headed Woman" or "Love Me Tender" (All Number 1 hits) or any of Elvis 1950's songs? It's as if they never existed. Are the experts here saying these were not legitimate hits because someone's palms got greased? I don't think they're saying that, but it may look that way to some. BTW, Elvis has 5 pages of Top 40 hits listings in Whitburn and yes quite a few WERE stiffs. Its just a new game today so deal with it, I guess. And if you miss the oldies you don't hear anymore, check out WRLL on line (who had a nice little bump in the latest trend).

http://www.realoldies1690.com/pages/listen_live.html<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperRadioFan on 09/21/05 05:27 PM.</FONT></P>
 
charts

Well, the fact that they are the BEST SELLING GROUP OF ALL TIME might have something to do with it. The fact they were the cause of major cultural change in America in the mid 60s, the fact they started a trend (British Invasion) that changed music forever. The point is that just because X song charted 40 years ago has little to do with what radio listeners want to hear today.

If you believe consultants killed Oldies and it's consultants who are behind JACK, it says a lot about how naive or bitter you are- just not sure which.


> >So if the charts are no indication of success, why are The
> Beatles considered successful? And Elvis for that matter.
> I believe it is consultants and programmers who killed
> oldies radio as we know it. And these same people are
> giving us the JACK FM genre.
> > >
> > > Yeah why don't Oldies stations use the charts? I have a
> > > Whitburn book and there are some tunes that I haven't even
> heard of ever. BTW: I have researched Top 40 station surveys and the
> > same goes for that. I find myself asking...what happened to
> > > these records? I should be familiar with these?
> >
>
 
hits now

Here's another way of looking at it: I think most of would agree that in the '70s, a lot of disco songs became chart hits just because disco was the fad of the day. We also know very few disco songs work on the radio anymore- the same case could probably be made with Elvis- at the height of his early popularity, just about anything he released got played and charted because he was "the" thing then. Many of his "hits" don't pass muster anymore- some do, some don't.

I don't think anybody is saying the charts don't nor never mattered. The point is just because a song charted highly at any point in time has little to do with whether radio listeners STILL want to hear it. And, a lot of songs crept their way higher on the charts than they should have BECAUSE of all the payola, favors, PD/DJ bias and lemming-like following of weekly chart action.

BTW- the reverse is also true. Many, MANY songs that didn't chart highly or at all are major hits for today's Oldies, Classicl Hits/Rock, Jack, Eighies and other library-based stations.
 
Re: hits now

> Here's another way of looking at it: I think most of would
> agree that in the '70s, a lot of disco songs became chart
> hits just because disco was the fad of the day. We also
> know very few disco songs work on the radio anymore- the
> same case could probably be made with Elvis- at the height
> of his early popularity, just about anything he released got
> played and charted because he was "the" thing then. Many of
> his "hits" don't pass muster anymore- some do, some don't.
>
> I don't think anybody is saying the charts don't nor never
> mattered. The point is just because a song charted highly
> at any point in time has little to do with whether radio
> listeners STILL want to hear it. And, a lot of songs crept
> their way higher on the charts than they should have BECAUSE
> of all the payola, favors, PD/DJ bias and lemming-like
> following of weekly chart action.
>
> BTW- the reverse is also true. Many, MANY songs that didn't
> chart highly or at all are major hits for today's Oldies,
> Classicl Hits/Rock, Jack, Eighies and other library-based
> stations.
>
Right on, Cat that makes total sense.

Re. DJ bias, I remember as a kid growing up in Central NJ, although WABC was the strongest station, I preferred the Philadelphia flavor of 990 WIBG with DJs like Joe Niagra, Bill Wright Sr, Jerry Stevens, and the king of nights, Hy Lit. While their daytime signal wasn't too bad on a good radio, living too far to get their reduced night signal of 10KW I listened to them on FM (1962-1966) before they stopped simulcasting with AM. Anyway, I remember Hyski playing a lot more R&B influenced music including a lot of local artists and RARELY heard him play anything MOR like a Frank Sinatra song, or Al Martino (who was big in Philly) or Dean Martin (Everybody Loves Somebody) even when those artists hit #1 on the WIBG Top 99.
AND unlike today, when a #1 song stayed there for more than a few weeks, Hy Lit wouldn't play it anymore.... i.e. Satisfaction in '65. The other DJs in other dayparts WOULD play those songs, so that leads me to believe Hy Lit had some pull on his own playlist.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperRadioFan on 09/21/05 08:28 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: A hit is a hit was a hit may not be a hit now

> Elvis and the Beatles--- are reduced to just a handful of
> titles these days, especially Elvis. When's the last time
> you heard "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You"

Every once in a while in the office where I have worked for the past year I hear "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You" (I like the piano bed on the second middle eight), "Hound Dog", "Don't Be Cruel", even "A Big Hunk o'Love" on the muzak speakers. Never heard "Suspicious Minds" on the muzak though.

ixnay
 
Re: hits now

Does that mean that #1 Harper Valley PTA is not cool anymore? Next thing you will say is that mini-skirts are not cool anymore.



> Here's another way of looking at it: I think most of would
> agree that in the '70s, a lot of disco songs became chart
> hits just because disco was the fad of the day. We also
> know very few disco songs work on the radio anymore- the
> same case could probably be made with Elvis- at the height
> of his early popularity, just about anything he released got
> played and charted because he was "the" thing then. Many of
> his "hits" don't pass muster anymore- some do, some don't.
>
> I don't think anybody is saying the charts don't nor never
> mattered. The point is just because a song charted highly
> at any point in time has little to do with whether radio
> listeners STILL want to hear it. And, a lot of songs crept
> their way higher on the charts than they should have BECAUSE
> of all the payola, favors, PD/DJ bias and lemming-like
> following of weekly chart action.
>
> BTW- the reverse is also true. Many, MANY songs that didn't
> chart highly or at all are major hits for today's Oldies,
> Classicl Hits/Rock, Jack, Eighies and other library-based
> stations.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
hits now

Lousy analogy. And, no- Harper Valley PTA wasn't cool much past tht time it was a current.

> Does that mean that #1 Harper Valley PTA is not cool
> anymore? Next thing you will say is that mini-skirts are
> not cool anymore.
 
Re: hits now

[Does that mean that #1 Harper Valley PTA is not cool
anymore?]

[It NEVER was cool.]


EXCEPT to the 1,000,000+ people who bought the record.
 
Harper Valley

> > Does that mean that #1 Harper Valley PTA is not cool
> > anymore?
>
> It NEVER was cool.
>

Years ago, when I wasn't paying attention, I was singing what I believed was "Harper Valley PTA"...

The beer must have done me in.

I had the Harper Valley widow wife jumping off the Tallahatchie Bridge.
 
Re: hits now

> [Does that mean that #1 Harper Valley PTA is not cool
> anymore?]
>
> [It NEVER was cool.]
>
>
> EXCEPT to the 1,000,000+ people who bought the record.
>
That's because there's only ONE David Eduardo Gleason. :>)

Actually anyone can make that statement about just about ANY song released in the 50's,60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. The "cool" factor is in the ear of the beholder.

BTW David E, what is your take on "Jungle Fever" the Top 10 million seller by The Chakachas?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom