• 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

It's not just KRTH, and not just Los Angeles.

fybush said:
Long Island is part of the NYC Nielsen market, and LMAs count against ownership cap. Audacy can't add any more FM signals there, whether owned or leased.
Click to expand...
Expanding on that point, "Nassau-Suffolk" is a rated market, and sometimes people believe this makes it separate from the New York City rated market.

Actually, Nielsen has a number of "embedded markets" which are portions of geographically large markets which have separate "subset" reports issued. All they are is a breakout of a portion of a market into a separate report, but with the same sampling quota standards as the full market.

Another good example of an embedded market is San Jose, CA. There, a single county of the huge San Francisco market is tabulated separately and given as a report that allows the smaller coverage stations there to use ratings to sell advertising.

In all cases, the "mothership market" (New York and San Francisco in my examples) fully includes the embedded markets, so the results are not additive.
 
CTListener said:
I like the music of my youth as much as anyone else, but I just don't get the arguments here for extending the radio shelf life of Elvis, the Supremes, the Four Seasons, Buddy Holly or the Dave Clark Five as if old pop songs are a sacred trust that needs preserving for future generations. Honest, the music wasn't that significant. It was just fun.
Click to expand...

That statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Just ask anyone from that era and they will tell you how controversial Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard's music was at that time. Conservative, mostly Christian people called it racist terms like "jungle music." Buddy Holly was called all kind of crap for playing that music in small town, conservative Texas. Today's music is hardly significant when compared to the culturally defining music of the 60's and how it led to a lot of legislation that changed our country, particularly the Civil Rights movement.
 
CTListener said:
It doesn't matter. The target audience for the music KOAI plays is shuffling off this mortal coil at a rate that increases with each passing year. Some of the songs will live on as what future generations will probably call "standards." Others will be forgotten, like the hundreds upon hundreds of ditties that Irvin Berlin wrote that weren't "God Bless America" or any of the other half dozen or so musical trifles that nonagenarians still hum. KOAI is being kept afloat by the billing of its owner's other stations. If the radio advertising market continues its apparent death spiral and negatively impacts the other stations, that owner will be forced to flip KOAI to some other format that will bill better than oldies.

I like the music of my youth as much as anyone else, but I just don't get the arguments here for extending the radio shelf life of Elvis, the Supremes, the Four Seasons, Buddy Holly or the Dave Clark Five as if old pop songs are a sacred trust that needs preserving for future generations. Honest, the music wasn't that significant. It was just fun.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree with the comments of CTListener. The artists music you mentioned changed the musical landscape. I'm surprised you left out The Beatles, they and their music ARE a sacred trust, they quite literally changed the entire world! Pop music historians and others 200 years from now will continue to divide pop music history into two basic eras: pre-Beatles and post-Beatles (this is assuming is or are no music "phenoms" comparable to the Beatles over this period of time.)
 
Street Novelist said:
That statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Just ask anyone from that era and they will tell you how controversial Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard's music was at that time. Conservative, mostly Christian people called it racist terms like "jungle music." Buddy Holly was called all kind of crap for playing that music in small town, conservative Texas. Today's music is hardly significant when compared to the culturally defining music of the 60's and how it led to a lot of legislation that changed our country, particularly the Civil Rights movement.
Click to expand...
Buddy Holly eventually found his way to success with RCA Records, after he left a small midwestern label/recording studio, because the owner/producer didn't like or understand what Buddy was trying to record. The bigoted producer told him, "We don't do "N" music!"
 
TomásEstefan said:
Buddy Holly eventually found his way to success with RCA Records,
Click to expand...

Actually it was Decca, which became MCA. It's now part of Universal Music Group.

He was also signed to Brunswick, which was a subsidiary of Decca.

Elvis Presley was on RCA. They bought his contract from Sun.
 
TomásEstefan said:
Totally disagree with the comments of CTListener. The artists music you mentioned changed the musical landscape. I'm surprised you left out The Beatles, they and their music ARE a sacred trust, they quite literally changed the entire world! Pop music historians and others 200 years from now will continue to divide pop music history into two basic eras: pre-Beatles and post-Beatles (this is assuming is or are no music "phenoms" comparable to the Beatles over this period of time.)
Click to expand...
The world would have been changed without music. The Industrial Revolution happened without it. So did the discovery of electricity, and the end of World War II, unless you actually think that the Andrews Sisters hastened the death of Hitler and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I remember in my college days a professor bringing in no less a '60s figure than Timothy Leary in for a reporting exercise for us aspiring journos. He was to give a lecture on campus that night promoting his space migration scheme, but agreed to a wide-ranging press conference-style exercise with students that morning. Well, wouldn't you know that one of the first questions wasn't about his nutty scheme, or even about LSD, but about the Beatles and his thoughts on their message and impact a half-dozen or so years after their breakup. His reply made it into just about all of our stories, I'd imagine. He called the Beatles "troubadours." I sensed a lot of outrage in the room, including a bit of my own, but the passing years have convinced me that Dr. Leary was right. The Beatles were geniuses, but what they gave the world, reduced to its essence, was musical entertainment.
 
Last edited:
TomásEstefan said:
Totally disagree with the comments of CTListener. The artists music you mentioned changed the musical landscape. I'm surprised you left out The Beatles, they and their music ARE a sacred trust, they quite literally changed the entire world! Pop music historians and others 200 years from now will continue to divide pop music history into two basic eras: pre-Beatles and post-Beatles (this is assuming is or are no music "phenoms" comparable to the Beatles over this period of time.)
Click to expand...
I usually am on the opposite side, but haven't you heard Elvis on the radio for at least 30 years? If I heard a favorite artist that long, I would be happy.
 
TomásEstefan said:
Totally disagree with the comments of CTListener. The artists music you mentioned changed the musical landscape. I'm surprised you left out The Beatles, they and their music ARE a sacred trust, they quite literally changed the entire world! Pop music historians and others 200 years from now will continue to divide pop music history into two basic eras: pre-Beatles and post-Beatles (this is assuming is or are no music "phenoms" comparable to the Beatles over this period of time.)
Click to expand...
There are obvious reasons why this is true, but on TV series set hundreds of years in the future, the songs of the 20th and early 21st centuries are still popular.

"The 100" has another good reason: the few known residents of Earth were on a space station after nuclear war. There could have been musicians recording new, innovative styles, but according to that show, the 20th and early 21st centuries produced the music people were still enjoying when Earth became safe to return to 100 years later.
 
TomásEstefan said:
Totally disagree with the comments of CTListener. The artists music you mentioned changed the musical landscape. I'm surprised you left out The Beatles, they and their music ARE a sacred trust, they quite literally changed the entire world! Pop music historians and others 200 years from now will continue to divide pop music history into two basic eras: pre-Beatles and post-Beatles (this is assuming is or are no music "phenoms" comparable to the Beatles over this period of time.)
Click to expand...
Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and a bunch of innovative artists caused the elimination of big bands, crooners and the like from the musical spectrum of younger people in what was just a few seconds of time for America.

And in many ways, they introduced the core sounds that influenced country music and created trends like harder rock, folk pop, Motown, AC and even disco in future years. Even the traditional artists like Nat "King" Cole, Paul Anka and Frankie Avalon adapted to fresher sounds, different orchestrations and the electric guitar.

Speaking of which, we have to add the influence of Les Paul and Mary Ford and the advances they pushed in electronic instruments.

There were only about 9 years between "Rock Around the Clock" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" but music was evolving faster than it ever did in those 9 years.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and a bunch of innovative artists caused the elimination of big bands, crooners and the like from the musical spectrum of younger people in what was just a few seconds of time for America.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I totally agree with that. Bill Haley's band had horns in it. Johnny Ray's crooner career continued into the 50s. But sure, the bands of the 30s & 40s were aging, and the younger folks are always looking for artists with whom they can identify.

But young people were experimenting with new sounds that they were hearing on the radio, often in fringe times on fringe radio stations. That's where Elvis & Buddy got their first exposure.

DavidEduardo said:
There were only about 9 years between "Rock Around the Clock" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" but music was evolving faster than it ever did in those 9 years.
Click to expand...

A lot of that was due to media exposure that didn't really exist for new acts. The revolution in music was fed by the revolution in media.
 
TheBigA said:
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. Bill Haley's band had horns in it. Johnny Ray's crooner career continued into the 50s. But sure, the bands of the 30s & 40s were aging, and the younger folks are always looking for artists with whom they can identify.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "the musical spectrum of young people". I'm a first-year boomer, and was about 9 when rock and roll hit a station fulltime in my city (although we had Alan Freed a couple of years before that). To me, there never was a Peggy Lee and Doris Day era... they were old peoples singers.
TheBigA said:
But young people were experimenting with new sounds that they were hearing on the radio, often in fringe times on fringe radio stations. That's where Elvis & Buddy got their first exposure.
Click to expand...
The first Top 40 station pre-dated the new music. KOWH simply dropped the MOR artists and played Danny and the Juniors singing "Rock and Roll is Here to Stay" instead.

In very small markets, the new music might have been put on just at night "for the kids". But in the period of 1955 to 1957, nearly every rated market from Roanoke and Albuquerque to Detroit and LA had one or more full time Top 40 stations
TheBigA said:
A lot of that was due to media exposure that didn't really exist for new acts. The revolution in music was fed by the revolution in media.
Click to expand...
The revolution in radio was forced by the death of network radio programs. Previously, in most markets there were few independent stations so most of them... and all the big signals... carried the 4 major networks. By the mid 50's, TV had taken the same content and added pictures. Radio had to find new solutions, which is why in some markets for a while you found 3 or even 4 Top 40 stations.
 
DavidEduardo said:
In very small markets, the new music might have been put on just at night "for the kids". But in the period of 1955 to 1957, nearly every rated market from Roanoke and Albuquerque to Detroit and LA had one or more full time Top 40 stations
Click to expand...

You might not always hear the "innovative" stuff that you mentioned earlier on a full time Top 40 station. You know the Alan Freed story better than I. He wasn't originally on a Top 40 station in Cleveland.
 
vchimpanzee said:
There are obvious reasons why this is true, but on TV series set hundreds of years in the future, the songs of the 20th and early 21st centuries are still popular.

"The 100" has another good reason: the few known residents of Earth were on a space station after nuclear war. There could have been musicians recording new, innovative styles, but according to that show, the 20th and early 21st centuries produced the music people were still enjoying when Earth became safe to return to 100 years later.
Click to expand...
I'm unfamiliar with "The 100", but assuming what you wrote was accurate, a nuclear war would involve nuclear bombs of one type or another. Those bombs would probably contain Plutonium239, which has a half-life of 24,100 years. (And even assuming one of the belligerents could have figured out how to build a bomb containing only Plutonium238, its half-life is almost 88 years. So you would need about 352 years before the radiation level had decayed to "only" 1/16th of its original level, still sufficiently toxic to ruin your day.)

So anyone returning to Earth after "only" 100 years is pretty likely to be dead by the end of year 101.

This is not exactly classified information anymore. (And hasn't been since before I struggled through nuclear physics many years ago.) So if a writer couldn't be bothered to research that that small detail on Wikipedia, or ask some available engineer or scientist, why would you believe their take on what music is going to remain popular in the far distant future?
 
Weiserguy said:
This is not exactly classified information anymore. (And hasn't been since before I struggled through nuclear physics many years ago.) So if a writer couldn't be bothered to research that that small detail on Wikipedia, or ask some available engineer or scientist, why would you believe their take on what music is going to remain popular in the far distant future?
Click to expand...
I don't think the show would have worked if it had been realistic about the time it would take to be safe, but they did freeze the cast members when they went searching for a safe planet after they ruined Earth again.

This is a little different from the topic, but if you're a little boy I guess anything from a few years ago is an oldie.

www.seattletimes.com

Comics: King Comics | The Seattle Times

www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com
 
Catching up on this thread...sorry for the time warp...

PTBoardOp94 said:
The formula for classic hits is, generally speaking, uptempo.

Cat's in the Cradle fails on that mark. It is also too old (1974). And, as we discussed in another thread of yours some months ago, is a real downer of a song, lyrically.

I'm not certain I ever heard that song on the radio, in any year.
Click to expand...

ChannelFlipper said:
Maybe you like the more uplifting "Taxi"?
Click to expand...

Mediafrog+ said:
All 6:43 of it? 🤔🤪

Taxi sure got a lot of airplay on Progressive Rock FM in the early 1970s, along with very limited spins on a few contemporary formatted AMs. Haven’t heard it anywhere on the radio in eons, though it does pop up on Music Choice and SiriusXM.

Chapin released a follow-up song named Sequel about a decade after Taxi that continues the story, and is about the same length.

Taxi (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
C'mon...

You're all missing the most obvious of Chapin's tunes...

 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom