Musical selections that seem out of character

[Music Lover]

Of course, the idea used to be trying to update the format, in an attempt to bring in younger listeners, without scaring away the standards listeners. Now, they have standards, that seem compatible with the newer material but for what purpose? All it does is cement the station's reputation, as a place for old people.

I've always heard that a standards station is what old people (age 50+) listen to. In my neck of the woods, if you are lucky enough to find one, it's usually on the AM band (which has bad static) and is labeled as "nostalgia".

 

[davideduardo]

I've always heard that a standards station is what old people (age 50+) listen to. In my neck of the woods, if you are lucky enough to find one, it's usually on the AM band (which has bad static) and is labeled as "nostalgia".

Nostalgia or standards is generally a format people over 70 listen to. In other words, pre-boomers who became teens prior to the advent of rock 'n roll.

Of course, 50 is not "old" by any means today.

 

[semoochie]

Nostalgia or standards is generally a format people over 70 listen to. In other words, pre-boomers who became teens prior to the advent of rock 'n roll.

Of course, 50 is not "old" by any means today.

That's exactly what I had in mind but "70" is low. I said "75" and that's still too low. My sister just turned 75 and she graduated from high school in 1958.

 

[Music Lover]

Encyclopedia entries describe the format for 50 and over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_standards. Many a child has considered that to be very old. hahaha.

 

[Music Lover]

That's exactly what I had in mind but "70" is low. I said "75" and that's still too low. My sister just turned 75 and she graduated from high school in 1958.

My dad graduated high school in 1963. The only new artists he seeks out these days is artists who record in the big-band era style, such as Harry Connick, Jr. or Diana Krall.

Both he and my mom (who graduated high school in 1966) connect more with a station playing Golden Oldies of the 1950s and 1960s (which is no longer a format on terrestrial radio in our neck of the woods) than they do with Classic Hits stations (which we only have one of in our neck of the woods and which tends to be heavy on music from the 1970s and 1980s.)

While my mom primarily loves 50s and 60s music, she has developed broader tastes in recent years. She enjoys stuff she would have shunned in the past, like Bon Jovi, Daughtry, Adele, Kelly Clarkson, Bruno Mars, Madonna, Michael Jackson, etc. It just depends on the song in question. Foul language and suggestive lyrics in a song are a turn off to her, just like they are with me.

 

[semoochie]

Encyclopedia entries describe the format for 50 and over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_standards. Many a child has considered that to be very old. hahaha.

Adult Standards was 50+ 30 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

Encyclopedia entries describe the format for 50 and over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_standards. Many a child has considered that to be very old. hahaha.

While Wikipedia is a convenient first source, so much of it is incomplete or wrong that without verification it is not worthy of citation or quotation.

For example, the piece on two stations for which I was the "new format" team leader in LA a few years back have Wikipedia descriptions of the coverage area, call letter meaning and the format itself which are 100% wrong. Not inaccurate... just totally and absolutely wrong.

In the case of standards, the appeal is definitely 70 and older, with the only caveat being that there are, like in any musical genre, small groups of younger persons who do listen to such music.

I am a boomer of the earliest kind. I know of no one who is a contemporary, including none of my high school or college contemporaries, who listened then or listen now to Sinatra, the big bands, Doris Day and the other singers and crooners.

When Music of Your Life was on the air on many stations 20 or so years ago, the listeners were all over 50. Now, they are mostly well over 70 (or they croaked before now).

 

[davideduardo]

That's exactly what I had in mind but "70" is low. I said "75" and that's still too low. My sister just turned 75 and she graduated from high school in 1958.

I tend to agree. Most people come of "musical age" in early adolescence... meaning anyone who was perhaps 12 in 1956 grew up on rock n' roll and Top 40 radio. Those people are 72 or older now. The bulk of standards listeners will be well over 75 as you said as teens in the mid-50's abandoned what we now call standards like rats leaving a sinking ship.

 

[PirateJohnny]

WHERE is it written that you must only listen to songs from your high school years? People (non-broadcasters) have older siblings (and even parents) who expose them to songs from out of/before that time frame. Young people (non-broadcasters) today hear Classic Hits on the radio from before they were born. They (non-broadcasters) become "familiar" with them. That (familiarity) is one parameter that is always talked about being measured and used for reducing playlists. That "listeners only listen to songs from their high school years) mindset is what has RUINED Classic Hits radio.

Have you seen the video of the grade school band performing Led Zeppelin tunes? Do you think none of them will explore (and enjoy) more music from that era?

 

[Music Lover]

WHERE is it written that you must only listen to songs from your high school years? People (non-broadcasters) have older siblings (and even parents) who expose them to songs from out of/before that time frame. Young people (non-broadcasters) today hear Classic Hits on the radio from before they were born. They (non-broadcasters) become "familiar" with them. That (familiarity) is one parameter that is always talked about being measured and used for reducing playlists. That "listeners only listen to songs from their high school years) mindset is what has RUINED Classic Hits radio.

Have you seen the video of the grade school band performing Led Zeppelin tunes? Do you think none of them will explore (and enjoy) more music from that era?

Older relatives is how I became exposed to oldies as a kid. My friends and I certainly never limited ourselves to just Debbie Gibson and Backstreet Boys.

 

[Music Lover]

I've never found anything wrong with Wikipedia. Their information seems to be accurate and up-to-date. I use them for research all the time.

They have a team of dedicated editors and watchers and specialized software to monitor changes, making sure that it's not so easy to vandalize Wikipedia.

 

[Music Lover]

Many radio format guides I've seen will go even lower than 50, saying the demographics are 35+. Here's one such example: http://www.newsgeneration.com/broadcast-resources/guide-to-radio-station-formats/

This one categorizes standards as Easy Listening and has 35+ for demographics. http://www.nanradio.com/station-formats.htm

Even this new article mentions the demographics of an AM standards station as being 35+. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/194401721.html. That station is now no longer on the air: http://www.jsonline.com/entertainme...ti-am-1290-1003-fm-b99415250z1-286839151.html

Looks to me like the 35+ demographics is due to contemporary artists with throwback sounds (Adele, Michael Buble, Norah Jones) being included on the stations.

 

[davideduardo]

Many radio format guides I've seen will go even lower than 50, saying the demographics are 35+.

There is no regulation that keeps a station from saying that they target an age group that, in fact, is not realistic. Generally, stations that lean old try to emphasize the younger part of the audience, and this is for sales reasons. Some would say that such stations "lie" and others would say it is just "puffery" but the fact is that stations can claim any target they want even if they do not deliver.

The page you linked is totally whack. For example, they say CHR targets teens and 18-24. Its real target is women 18-44. Nobody specifically targets teens as there is no money there. Another example: Hot AC which they say targets 25-34. It really targets women 18-49.

Other examples. Classic Rock is not 25-44 men. It is persons 35-54. Classic Hits is not 25-44, it is 35-54 for targeting and 35+ in reality. Easy Listening is not "35+" as it is, today, 70+.

In general, the list is inaccurate or totally wrong on at least 75% of its descriptions and age ranges.

This one categorizes standards as Easy Listening and has 35+ for demographics.

And they are just totally, even absurdly wrong. Not everything you read on the web is accurate.

Start with those jokers' first listing for AAA which says it is a growing format of pop music with appeal to 25-49 women. AAA is a shrinking format of mostly rock music, has a male-leaning appeal and is decidedly 35+ in actual audience. But the worst example is calling African American formats "R&B" when the term has been "urban" for decades... and where there is also, in that ethnic space, "Urban AC" for slightly older listeners. This list is worse than the first one, which is astounding if you think about it.

Even this new article mentions the demographics of an AM standards station as being 35+. That station is now no longer on the air: [/url]

The station managed to get to about 25th in rank, made up almost entirely of people over 55, which is why they changed format (the station did not go off the air... the format simply changed). But, as I said, the station can say their target is teens and young adults, but if they play Sinatra and Dean Martin, they will get the geezer crowd no matter what they say.

 

[davideduardo]

I've never found anything wrong with Wikipedia. Their information seems to be accurate and up-to-date. I use them for research all the time.

Are you serious?

They have a team of dedicated editors and watchers and specialized software to monitor changes, making sure that it's not so easy to vandalize Wikipedia.

There is a wealth of incomplete and inaccurate information on Wikipedia, particularly in the area of interest to participants in this forum. I would say that 80% of station histories are wrong, ranging from wrong dates and past formats to inaccurate data on meanings of call letters and such.

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRCD_(FM)

It says that simulcast partner KRCV broadcasts to the western part of the Riverside / San Bernardino market. In fact, it has no signal in any significant part of that market, makes no effort to serve that market and is blocked by a translator on the same channel inside that market. In truth, it broadcasts to the San Gabriel Valley part of the LA market.

It says the transmitter for KRCV is in Pomona. It is, in fact, in Duarte, well inside the LA market.

It says the calls mean "ReCuerDo" which "is" the station name. "Recuerdo" has not been the name for 3 years. It says KRCV stands for "CoVina" when really it is the closest we could get to the main station's calls. Since "V" and "D" sound even more alike in Spanish, the idea was to have both almost identically pronounced. There was never any interest in identifying only with "West Covina".

Further on, it says the station "picked up a unique rock en español" format. As "Ritmo" it was a pop station, and was definitely not a Spanish rock station.

There are further errors in the timeline and format descriptions, but you should be able to see how inaccurate, overall, the listing is. This is typical for station listings, format descriptions, DJ bios, etc.

Even the listing for sister station, KLVE, is full of inaccuracies such as "KLVE-FM immediately prior to being acquired by the Spanish based Liberman Broadcasting group." The now defunct "K-Love Broadcasting Company", owned by Julio, José and Elías Liberman, was not based in Spain but right in Los Angeles.

And so on.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I've never found anything wrong with Wikipedia. Their information seems to be accurate and up-to-date. I use them for research all the time.

They have a team of dedicated editors and watchers and specialized software to monitor changes, making sure that it's not so easy to vandalize Wikipedia.

That's the funniest post I've ever seen you make.

If their team was so "dedicated", why have I had to fix so many pages with completely incorrect information about both radio and television stations? They monitor changes but if someone runs into a brickwall when editing an entry and doesn't go deep enough to research it, they end up writing whatever they "think must have happened". That immediately creates a danger of inaccuracy, which is something no encyclopedia wants in other than incidental amounts.

Here is an example of something I corrected just the other day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWCH-DT

KWCH started operation as KTVH and was the first television station in that area (primary CBS affiliate, some carriage of ABC and NBC) until the short-lived KEDD on channel 16 began operation in Wichita as a primary affiliate of NBC. The two were joined not long afterward by KAKE on channel 10 which took full-time ABC affiliation, ending the carriage on KTVH and KEDD of ABC on a secondary basis. When KARD-TV went on the air on channel 3 several months before KEDD's network affiliation contract was set to expire, KEDD knew they wouldn't be renewed (and NBC confirmed that not long afterwards) and they literally went dark the day their NBC affiliation ended.

Here is what the KWCH Wikipedia entry said, all deleted now by yours truly:
KTVH shared NBC programming with KEDD-TV (channel 16). Both stations lost the NBC affiliation when KAKE-TV (channel 10) signed on in October 1954, but channel 12 continued to air some ABC programming until KARD-TV (channel 3, now KSNW) signed on in September 1955 and took over the NBC affiliation. KEDD, meanwhile, operated as an independent station for a short time after losing NBC to KAKE before it shut down.

Do you see how many incorrect statements are made in the space of only three sentences?
1. KAKE didn't take NBC away from the two, but ABC. In fact, I was able to further verify using newspaper archives that KEDD carried more NBC programming and KTVH carried more CBS programming as a result, with virtually no ABC programs anywhere but channel 12.
2. KARD did not take over the affiliation upon signing on, since the NBC contract with KEDD was still in force. It was channel 3 which operated for several months as an independent, waiting for that contract to end. Again, using the newspaper archives for additional confirmation, KEDD cleared the entire NBC schedule its last day as an affiliate (April 30, 1956) with the exception of one 15-minute daytime soap opera. KARD's schedule on that day didn't even begin until 5:00pm and was filled with local programs and syndicated shows such as Highway Patrol and The Cisco Kid.

All of the erroneous information could have been avoided by a simple search at David Gleason's site for all articles about KEDD in Broadcasting, but whoever wrote those sentences essentially made up a version of history.

Wikipedia is, as David says, a good first source, but should never be used as a citation without verifying the "fact" independently.

 

[davideduardo]

WHERE is it written that you must only listen to songs from your high school years? People (non-broadcasters) have older siblings (and even parents) who expose them to songs from out of/before that time frame. Young people (non-broadcasters) today hear Classic Hits on the radio from before they were born. They (non-broadcasters) become "familiar" with them. That (familiarity) is one parameter that is always talked about being measured and used for reducing playlists. That "listeners only listen to songs from their high school years) mindset is what has RUINED Classic Hits radio.

Have you seen the video of the grade school band performing Led Zeppelin tunes? Do you think none of them will explore (and enjoy) more music from that era?

Have you seen the audience demographics of the formats you mention? While there may be a few people outside the standard and expected demographics for a format, they are what are statistically called "outliers". From a practical perspective, there are not enough of them to make a station attractive to ad buyers outside the normal demos.

Any time you test people outside a station's traditional demos, you get a few songs that are familiar and well liked, and loads of songs that are unfamiliar and not liked or even hated.

Most young people don't hear classic hits from the time they were born because even the most successful classic hits (or oldies stations a decade ago) stations only get around a 5 share and most people in a market don't listen to them at all.

 

[davideduardo]

That's the funniest post I've ever seen you make.

Yup!

Wikipedia is, as David says, a good first source, but should never be used as a citation without verifying the "fact" independently.

I have tried to follow the Wikipedia articles that use my site for citation. I've checked about 3,000 of them and about 80% of those got it right. The rest took data out of context and made interpretation mistakes.

I don't have the time to correct all the incomplete and inaccurate Wikidata I find... I am currently running a 4-month backlog on my own site (including 150,000 pages of Billboard) but the errors are there. Having Wikipedia is better than not having it, and I send a small donation every year, but extreme caution needs to be employed in taking it all as fact without verification.

 

[semoochie]

I have mentioned that I was once looking through Wikipedia and was astonished to find myself being misquoted! Someone actually found something I had written somewhere on the internet and got it wrong.

 

[Music Lover]

I use Wikipedia to find out entertainment stuff, such as a plot of a movie I'm interested in seeing or to find out when the next season of a TV show I'm watching will premiere. That kind of information you won't find in Encyclopedia Britannica.

I think its greatest value is its links to outside sources. It saves a lot of time vs. sifting through a gazillion Google hits to find something.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I think its greatest value is its links to outside sources.

Well, I wish you'd said that in the first place. Using Wikipedia to find links to source material allows you to read the material for yourself and avoid the misinformation that appears on the pages themselves.

I had an entirely different interpretation of your original statement, absent the above from you. My apologies.