LA PPM RATINGS RELEASED AUGUST 2009

[MarcR]

I find it entertaining that a bunch of radio geeks on a message board are determining what is and what is not good music, along with what music will stand the test of time.

If this board was around 20 years ago, I imagine many of the things said about today's artists would have been said about the hits of 1989 that now get play on KBIG, Jack, etc.

Sure, there are 15 year olds out there that are now familiar with the Beatles because of the availability of Rock Band, iPods, and a number of new technologies, but is it a large enough group to justify running a PROFITABLE oldies or classic hits station still focused on 60s music? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The 90s saw grunge, techno, a swing revival, a ska revival, a punk revival, numetal, rap, and electronica, but these were all pretty polarizing niche forms without mass appeal

Grunge and the punk revival were not "polarizing niche forms without mass appeal". Nirvana and Peral Jam (grunge) sold more than 10 million albums of their respective debuts while Green Day (punk revival) also sold more than 10 million albums.

 

[radiojomo]

Scooty is right about one thing, the music being played on KIIS and Amp today will be forgotten 10 years from now.

It doesn't seem that way anymore with formats like '90s Hits popping up like KBZC. But I have a good feeling that this format will be unsuccessful. Unlike classic hits format where they have a wider range of songs to play, '90s Hits is very confined to a certain list of artists. The experiment might be good for a few months but then when people get tired of listening to "Torn", "California Love" and "Jeremy" over and over again, they might get a little roudy!

 

[scooty430]

I find it entertaining that a bunch of radio geeks on a message board are determining what is and what is not good music, along with what music will stand the test of time.

If this board was around 20 years ago, I imagine many of the things said about today's artists would have been said about the hits of 1989 that now get play on KBIG, Jack, etc. I still remember where I was when I first heard the opening riff to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" on KROQ. (And, also on KROQ where I was when they announced Cobain died.)

Sure, there are 15 year olds out there that are now familiar with the Beatles because of the availability of Rock Band, iPods, and a number of new technologies, but is it a large enough group to justify running a PROFITABLE oldies or classic hits station still focused on 60s music? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The 90s saw grunge, techno, a swing revival, a ska revival, a punk revival, numetal, rap, and electronica, but these were all pretty polarizing niche forms without mass appeal

Grunge and the punk revival were not "polarizing niche forms without mass appeal". Nirvana and Peral Jam (grunge) sold more than 10 million albums of their respective debuts while Green Day (punk revival) also sold more than 10 million albums.

Hey, no disrespect to any of those groups. I have albums by all three of them. Nirvana in particular are the band that broke the aforementioned pop doldrum period of the late 80's/very early 90's.

But they do polarize people. I will give you Green Day as a band that crosses over into mainstream at times - they're really pop/punk in their hits. But Nirvana and Pearl Jam, despite their sales, are bands that do not appeal to everyone in the way the Beatles did (or do.) Some people would not be able to sit through "Lithium," "Rape Me" or even "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana.

 

[justpassingthough]

There is very little material that fits, will appeal to a broad audience, and most importantly that will stand up to years and years of airplay. This is why the "let's move up the oldies to match our demo's youth" approach is not going to work forever. "Safety Dance" and "Flashdance" are probably not going to be able to withstand 40 years of constant airplay like Brown Eyed Girl or Respect. And after that?.... Nirvana? Snoop Doggy Dog? Hanson? Spice Girls? Hootie and the Blowfish? Yikes - what a nightmare.

But, Scooty, the problem is that 40 yeas of constant airplay is an anomaly. There weren't stations in 1969 playing nothing but the hits of the mid-20s through mid-30s.

By 1979, yes...mid-30s to mid-40s music was a format...The Music of Your Life...but it wasn't aimed at vital adults aged 25-54. The format that was aimed at and delivering that demo (adult contemporary pre-Jhani Kaye's KOST) was playing currents by Steely Dan, The Bee Gees, The Doobie Brothers, and oldies from 1964-1978.

Ideally, oldies targeted at 25-54 year olds is a living, breathing format. It has survived despite getting locked in a time warp because of the sheer number of baby boomers and the length of the boom (1946-1964). But even the youngest boomers turn 45 this year...six years older than the midpoint of the demo. And their point of musical reference is the 80s, not the 60s. KRTH sounding like Drake-era KHJ is irrelevant because they never heard it or were 9 or younger when they did. In their teens and early 20s, they were listening to KROQ. That's probably where oldies material should be coming from right now...80s new wave/alternative and post-1983 CHR. And it would still skew slightly old within 25-54.

Ultimately, it has to move with the generations...and in a healthy environment that delivers the desired demos to advertisers, the songs don't have to stand up for 40 years...15 to 20 would do just fine.

---Michael Hagerty

Maybe you are right. But I wonder if even the person who is 19 years old today is going to want to hear today's music when he or she is 35.

You make a point that the people who grew up with KHJ are really old now - true. But the person who grew up in the 90s DID hear K-Earth. Their parents and grandparents were listening to it, and they were certainly exposed to it in the car, maybe at home. Their parents may also have played those records and CDs too. So while they may (or may not) have complained at the time, perhaps now that THEY are becoming boring old farts, they might have a new appreciation for this older music, especially because it is so good.

You’re making a rather large assumption about people to justify that ONE day people will want to listen to the music of the 60s and 70s. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, my parents didn’t listen to KRTH. I’m sure some parents did, though.

If I were going on only my parents taste in music, and they largely left the radio selection up to the kids, I would assume that oldies or classic hits should now be made up of gold from KROQ, KPWR, and KIIS.

Also, music tastes are subjective. Please stop assuming because you classify music as “so good”, everyone else agrees. I happen to really like classic rock, but in a city like LA with vastly different demographics than the rest of the country, it is foolish to assume that everyone shares your music tastes.

 

[oldies76]

Perhaps you chose an arbitrary year, but 1989 is certainly not remembered by anyone as a great year for music.

I'll take "Sowing the Seeds of Love" and "Another Day in Paradise" over the Batdance anytime. Soul II Soul was good too.

 

[AM FM listener]

LA probably has an equivalent station, but I'm not sure what it would be.

Hot 92.3, although Hot has more Hispanic influence.

I was wondering, what % of KHHT's audience is Black vs. Hispanic vs. Other?

Also, generally speaking, what would you say is the dividing line (audience % wise) between an Urban or Rhythmic format? I have seen Hot 92.3 labeled as Urban AC by some and Rhythmic AC/Oldies by others.

 

[Wildstyle K]

As far as much of today's top 40 music, the average person could listen to certain things and just know that much of today's (hit) music will not last as long as past hits, especially the generations where more quality was something most people looked for in music.

If even my mom and countless other people who have no or limited interest / knowledge in music or radio can say "I bet today's hits wont be around when....and will never make it as.......", then that says something. While some of it may be quality, something seriously lacks in much of today's hit music...

2001-2009 I'd say was the worst period of time for hit music, with 2009+ beginning to show signs of better days to come.

People may have been complaining about the music for each next generation, but there has never been this much of a lack of quality in hit music, both instrumentation and lyrically, as there has been within the past few years. I've listened to the top 40 KIIS airchecks from 1984 and '85 on YouTube, and even though I was not into music during those times, I could still see the huge difference in quality between then and now. As a matter of fact, I notice it every time I listen to oldies. Oldies have always been more real. I doubt people will be saying the same thing about "LOL " in a few years when that song becomes an oldie "oh remember LOL Smiley Face? Those were the times.... those were the times."

Anyway, let me let you guys get back to your L.A. PPM talk.

 

[oldies76]

As far as much of today's top 40 music, the average person could listen to certain things and just know that much of today's (hit) music will not last as long as past hits, especially the generations where more quality was something most people looked for in music.

The older music has more quality, more variety, real instruments and is simple and the more familiar and big hits will stand the test of time for years to come.

Yeah, some of today's hits are good, but it's almost the easy way out...not much instrumentation at all, all computerized, lots of sampling going on, some hits not original...etc..

It's just a different sub-era, of the rock era we're in.

 

[oldies76]

2001-2009 I'd say was the worst period of time for hit music, with 2009+ beginning to show signs of better days to come.

I always thought 2001 & 2002 were good.....Jennifer Lopez, Shakira, Nelly Furtado had some decent stuff.

 

[Wildstyle K]

I really meant to say 2000-2009 because I wanted to fill up an entire decade. Sometimes doing so also has to include a few not so bad years... but the goal there was to define the worst decade. 2009 wasn't necessarily that bad either, but people are going to look back on the decade as a whole, not "well starting in 2003... and with exception to the reggaeton in 2005...." etc. I don't think it REALLY got bad until around 2006 or 2007, but the build up to "what happened" in music, you could clearly see the decline in quality and music approaching over the years.

 

[justpassingthough]

I don't think its accurate to say music is better or worse this decade than in any other decade.

I think the greatest challenge facing radio, and this will be especially true of oldies or classic hits stations down the road, is the fragmentation of the music audience. There are so many avenues of delivery (radio, satellite radio, internet radio, etc.), and a diversification of music formats, that its hard to get anyone to agree on what is a "hit" in 2009. The same thing is happening in all mediums, though.

In relation to the debate we are having, though, its becoming increasingly difficult to program stations that are not tight in focus, musically. Oldies stations 10 years ago could run the gamut from the 1950s to the 1970s and sound like a trainwreck as they switched between Motown, classic rock, soul, AC, etc. In the days of instant gratification, people no longer tolerate that which they disagree with, and they aren't going to 'stick it out' and listen to music they don't want to listen to in the hopes of eventually hearing a song they like.

 

[AM FM listener]

I don't think its accurate to say music is better or worse this decade than in any other decade.

I think the greatest challenge facing radio, and this will be especially true of oldies or classic hits stations down the road, is the fragmentation of the music audience. There are so many avenues of delivery (radio, satellite radio, internet radio, etc.), and a diversification of music formats, that its hard to get anyone to agree on what is a "hit" in 2009. The same thing is happening in all mediums, though.

In relation to the debate we are having, though, its becoming increasingly difficult to program stations that are not tight in focus, musically. Oldies stations 10 years ago could run the gamut from the 1950s to the 1970s and sound like a trainwreck as they switched between Motown, classic rock, soul, AC, etc. In the days of instant gratification, people no longer tolerate that which they disagree with, and they aren't going to 'stick it out' and listen to music they don't want to listen to in the hopes of eventually hearing a song they like.

This post is quite profound, IMO. Today's contemporary music formats have fragmented into so many narrowly focused genres that the oldies formats of tomorrow will probably be similarly fragmented. I have never thought about WHY format fragmentation gained so much momentum but it may coincide with the rapid evolution of the personal computer and then the internet...i.e., instant gratification.

 

[Wildstyle K]

I believe the dumbing down of radio and shortening up of playlists also helped pave the road for this to eventually happen today at some level.

 

[michael hagerty]

I have never thought about WHY format fragmentation gained so much momentum...

Because when it works, it works. You're playing only what the audience you're targeting wants to hear, which means longer listening...fewer tune-outs.

---Michael Hagerty

 

[Element9]

I have never thought about WHY format fragmentation gained so much momentum...

Because when it works, it works. You're playing only what the audience you're targeting wants to hear, which means longer listening...fewer tune-outs.

---Michael Hagerty

And the hits just keep on comin'.