Nickelback: is it Classic Rock?

[Biz Listener]

"It doesn't have to be old to be classic rock!"

That is totally, 100% correct.

Anything past 1990 has no place on a classic rock station

Otherwise you are a mainstream rock station

That is 100% totally stupid.

"Classic" rock is defined by the sound of each song, not by the recording session date. And not by pigeon-holing various artists into categories. Kris Kristoffersob's definition of what a country song is also applies to classic rock. If it sounds like classic rock, then it is classic rock.

As for radio stations programming music based on reaching some target age-group demographic based on the principle that everyone only likes whatever was on the Top 40 (or CHR playlist) when they were in high school, that's one of the most damnfool stupid things I think I've ever heard! Maybe back in the olden days (like the 50's) that was true. But radio has been so dominated by various formats that played old songs from different eras that everyone alive today has heard the stuff the was new when they were in high school, and the stuff from before then, and the stuff from after than. And nowadays, people like what they like the sound of. The only people left who care when a song was recorded are radio industry suits who don't know squat about music and therefore have to program radio stations based on what they read in a magazine.

Billy Joel had it right.

Oh it doesn't matter what they say in the papers, 'cause it's always been the same old scene.
There's a new band in town but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine.

But that's exactly where most radio station programmers get their information about music from -- magazines.

In the true sense of the format called "classic rock"... no, Nickelback does not belong.

Then change the freakin' format! Who says that "classic rock" is only songs recorded between two target dates on some calendar somewhere? Who made that rule? Are the format police going to come along and arrest any program director who decides to play songs that his audience wants to hear regardless of when they were recorded?

 

[drpickle]

If the music has dynamic attributes, and is creative it should be considered classic rock. Again this leaves out Nickelback and their ilk. Wilco, The Flaming Lips, Radiohead, Travis (at least their late 90's material), REM, Joseph Arthur, Calexico, Drive By Truckers, and others I can't think of right now are classic rock because they make creative, exciting music. I'll even go as far as saying Phish is classic rock even though I do not care for jam rock in general. But, never Dave Mathews!

 

[wangchung]

"It doesn't have to be old to be classic rock!"

That is totally, 100% correct.

Anything past 1990 has no place on a classic rock station

Otherwise you are a mainstream rock station

That is 100% totally stupid.

"Classic" rock is defined by the sound of each song, not by the recording session date. And not by pigeon-holing various artists into categories. Kris Kristoffersob's definition of what a country song is also applies to classic rock. If it sounds like classic rock, then it is classic rock.

As for radio stations programming music based on reaching some target age-group demographic based on the principle that everyone only likes whatever was on the Top 40 (or CHR playlist) when they were in high school, that's one of the most damnfool stupid things I think I've ever heard! Maybe back in the olden days (like the 50's) that was true. But radio has been so dominated by various formats that played old songs from different eras that everyone alive today has heard the stuff the was new when they were in high school, and the stuff from before then, and the stuff from after than. And nowadays, people like what they like the sound of. The only people left who care when a song was recorded are radio industry suits who don't know squat about music and therefore have to program radio stations based on what they read in a magazine.

Billy Joel had it right.

Oh it doesn't matter what they say in the papers, 'cause it's always been the same old scene.
There's a new band in town but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine.

But that's exactly where most radio station programmers get their information about music from -- magazines.

In the true sense of the format called "classic rock"... no, Nickelback does not belong.

Then change the freakin' format! Who says that "classic rock" is only songs recorded between two target dates on some calendar somewhere? Who made that rule? Are the format police going to come along and arrest any program director who decides to play songs that his audience wants to hear regardless of when they were recorded?

I'm guessing by your lack of programming knowledge that you're a listener, or a wannabe.

Here's my fav: "The only people left who care when a song was recorded are radio industry suits who don't know squat about music and therefore have to program radio stations based on what they read in a magazine."

Truth is, the majority of music listeners form their musical tastes between the ages of 12-24. That's why "classic rock" stations, attempting to attract 35-54 listeners, play music that was created 20-40 years ago. When a loyal "classic rock" listener turns on their fav station for classic rock, they are not hoping to hear Nickelback.

The classic rock format was designed in the late 80's to attract listeners who were music fans of the 60's/70's. As the listeners age, that will change.

And as far as programmers getting their info from magazines? LOL, maybe that worked back when Billy Joel was RELEVANT in the 70s, but not by today's standards. P1 research, local sales and gut instinct drives the successful rock PDs of today.

 

[porkythepig]

Amen, wangchung.  The classic rocker playing Nickelback is owned by Cumulus and most know about their company wide playlists (see the Jan Jeffries thread on the CHR board for reference.)

Ultimately why "mainstream rock" stations fail if competing with classic rock and/or an active rock in a market is because the 25-54 classic rock core listener developed their listening habits and tastes at 12-24 and doesn't want to hear new music.  The 18-34 active rock core doesn't want to hear their dad's music on the active rock because there's a station already playing that in the market.  Sad, but true.

I will say that "mainstream rock" stations get HUGE ratings (boosted by a solid morning show) in markets where there's no competition.  I worked at a heritage mainstream rock station that evolved from AOR in the 80s, and later classic rock in the 90s, that consistently kicked ass with double digits (often over 15 shares) 12+ and we still got loads of "WTF IS THIS NEW AGE SH!T" calls.  Once it got classic rock competition (competing with its classic hits sister station, which has since then evolved to classic rock to directly compete) a few years ago, they morphed into active rock and still gets double digits because cume and TSL went up in 18-34.  But it's better to be the station that everyone likes than the station they only listen to because it's the only choice.  Plus, the sales department would rather sell 25-54 than 18-34 because of the stereotype that headbangers are dope-smoking derelicts with tattoos.

On the other hand, mainstream rockers invite new P1s that will be future 25-54's, so it's easier for them to evolve over time as they've always played the post-90s and current rock since it's already familiar!

 

[wangchung]

Amen, wangchung. The classic rocker playing Nickelback is owned by Cumulus and most know about their company wide playlists (see the Jan Jeffries thread on the CHR board for reference.)

Ultimately why "mainstream rock" stations fail if competing with classic rock and/or an active rock in a market is because the 25-54 classic rock core listener developed their listening habits and tastes at 12-24 and doesn't want to hear new music. The 18-34 active rock core doesn't want to hear their dad's music on the active rock because there's a station already playing that in the market. Sad, but true.

I will say that "mainstream rock" stations get HUGE ratings (boosted by a solid morning show) in markets where there's no competition. I worked at a heritage mainstream rock station that evolved from AOR in the 80s, and later classic rock in the 90s, that consistently kicked ass with double digits (often over 15 shares) 12+ and we still got loads of "WTF IS THIS NEW AGE SH!T" calls. Once it got classic rock competition (competing with its classic hits sister station, which has since then evolved to classic rock to directly compete) a few years ago, they morphed into active rock and still gets double digits because cume and TSL went up in 18-34. But it's better to be the station that everyone likes than the station they only listen to because it's the only choice. Plus, the sales department would rather sell 25-54 than 18-34 because of the stereotype that headbangers are dope-smoking derelicts with tattoos.

On the other hand, mainstream rockers invite new P1s that will be future 25-54's, so it's easier for them to evolve over time as they've always played the post-90s and current rock since it's already familiar!

Absolutely, you got it man! With a strong AM show, we took our mainstream rocker to #1 12+...positioning ourselves between a weak CC-owned cookie-cutter classic rocker AND a CC-owned active rocker (which ironically I was the previous PD!).

I personally prefer a mainstream over a classic rocker, but obviously I'm not an average listener!

Would like to know what you think of this theory I have:
With the changes in delivery (mobile devices, internet), will classic rock shares go up for terrrestrial outlets? With the younger demos being more connected than say...35+ demos, will the majority of terrestrial listeners in the future become older? Will upper demo formats thrive such as oldies, classic rock & smooth jazz?

...oh and I had to laugh over your Cumulus comment.

 

[Biz Listener]

I'm guessing by your lack of programming knowledge that you're a listener, or a wannabe.

Here's my fav: "The only people left who care when a song was recorded are radio industry suits who don't know squat about music and therefore have to program radio stations based on what they read in a magazine."

Truth is, the majority of music listeners form their musical tastes between the ages of 12-24. That's why "classic rock" stations, attempting to attract 35-54 listeners, play music that was created 20-40 years ago. When a loyal "classic rock" listener turns on their fav station for classic rock, they are not hoping to hear Nickelback.

The classic rock format was designed in the late 80's to attract listeners who were music fans of the 60's/70's. As the listeners age, that will change.

And as far as programmers getting their info from magazines? LOL, maybe that worked back when Billy Joel was RELEVANT in the 70s, but not by today's standards. P1 research, local sales and gut instinct drives the successful rock PDs of today.

I am not a wannabe. I am an actual, bona-fide listener. And I am a musician.

Your statement that people form their musical tastes between the ages of 12 and 24 has a kernel of truth to it. However, that also include the musicians themselves. Which means that musicians whose taste formed when they were between 12 and 24 will continue to create new music that reflects that taste. The music recorded by musicians over the age of 24 will continue to appeal to listeners over the age of 24 as the listeners grow older at the same pace as the musicians.

And, anyone whose taste was formed between 1980 and today could very well be the result of listening to older music on stations that played "vintage" songs as their core format. I was between the ages of 12 and 24 from 1974 to 1985. During that time, I listened to lots of newly recorded music, but I also listened to music that was already old, like early British Invasion stuff, and 1960's album rock. The albums "Days of Future Past", "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", and "Disreali Gears" were on my turntable just as much as "Dark Side of the Moon", "Bat Out of Hell", of "Born to Run". I liked Wings, but I also liked the Beatles. I liked the songs Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers recorded when I was a teenager, and I liked the stuff he recorded after I passed 24. I liked almost everything the Traveling Wilbury's recorded. I liked the stuff the Who did in the 70's, but that lead me to seek out the stuff they did earlier which I enjoyed just as much.

And, even though it was the hot musical fad in the 70's when I was a teenager, I thought disco sucked when it was new, and I think it still sucks now.

And that's where the radio suits just don't get it. Just because teenyboppers only listened to the newest Top-40 offerings back in the 1960's, that paradigm ended in the 1970's.

I will say that "mainstream rock" stations get HUGE ratings (boosted by a solid morning show) in markets where there's no competition.

Well, duh! What a revelation! It's easy to come in first if you're the only one in the race. I never realized that. Thank you for sharing that with us all.

 

[porkythepig]

@ Biz Listener:  You are a research sample of ONE.  Others may agree, but still others will have different tastes.

@ Wang:  With cell phones, ipods, etc., radio will have to compete by being more than just a jukebox.  It's easier for gold based formats (oldies/classic hits, classic rock, AC, etc.) to evolve over the time in markets where was a station playing the stuff as currents back in the day, so they test better in AMTs. Formats have to evolve, because it's hard to sell 55+ and people eventually die when they get old, which is why you don't see a lot of easy listening stations around anymore.  Rock got fragmented by the 1990s (active rock, alternative, AAA, etc.), so who knows what will be playing on classic rock stations in 2030? ;D

PS - the mainstream rock station evolved into active rock (with classic hits sister station evolving into classic rock for a two headed rock monster.) because of classic rock competition and still kicks ass in the ratings (beating the classic rock competition in 25-54).  And the two rockers are owned by CC, but both were around before CC bought them (the active rocker has heritage since the early 80s.)

 

[scottsvb5]

Personally I would play todays Active Rock (not alternative) and some of the 80s Hardrock/metal and only play the big songs of the grunge 90s.

60% New Active Rock

30% 80s Metal-Hairbands

10% Nirvana,Bush...etc etc

I think alot are tired of the same 90s alternative rock bands being played day in day out! The
demand for hearing hairbands and 80s metal on the radio (from time to time) is high up, especially
with todays active rock sounding alot like hardrock of the later 80s without the glam to it!

 

[Biz Listener]

Personally I would play todays Active Rock (not alternative) and some of the 80s Hardrock/metal and only play the big songs of the grunge 90s.

60% New Active Rock

30% 80s Metal-Hairbands

10% Nirvana,Bush...etc etc

I think alot are tired of the same 90s alternative rock bands being played day in day out! The
demand for hearing hairbands and 80s metal on the radio (from time to time) is high up, especially
with todays active rock sounding alot like hardrock of the later 80s without the glam to it!

On behalf of both XM and Sirius radio, as well as the makers of iPod and all internet downloading companies, I have only one thing to say to you about that format you've described.

Thank you.

It's programmers like you who ensure that all those alternative media will thrive and be around long after FM radio has become as important as AM currently is.

 

[wangchung]

Biz:

As a listener, your points are valid...btw, (not meant as a slam) you are NOT the average radio listener by any means.

As a PD who needs to produce ratings and generate revenue, I need results that show up in the Arbitron and in my stations monthly P/L sheet. That's why programming with specific and targeted formatics is so important, but it is also the reason why radio has become so redundant.

My hope is that things will change for the benefit of the listeners (and the hard working PDs) as we see the PPM trickle down into more markets. When that happens, you'll (hopefully) hear radio presented in a different fashion...based more on TSL instead of cume...then we have to educate the people who buy advertising on our stations to realize the benefits of those changes. Because remember biz, radio is a advertising vehicle first and foremost, that's the reality. Without the ad revenue, there is no terrestrial radio.

But guys like me, porkythepig and others work hard to deliver not only a great sounding station that meets the listeners expectations, but also can deliver for the advertisers who invest their dollars in us hoping for a strong return on their investment. It's not easy, the competition is fierce in most markets, and with the advent of new technology the challenges are now ten-fold.

There may be 17 million people listening to Satrad, and millions others listening online, but terrestrial radio STILL attracts more than 230 million listeners!

They must like something or they wouldn't keep coming back!

 

[kenrayc]

I would like to see that format in my market ,you would have to listen to 4 stations.Station 1:KRZR the main ACTIVE ROCK stations plays mostly music from the last 10 years,plays some 90"s ,but only a few artist before 1990(Led Zeppelin,Pink Floyd,Motley Crue and AC/DC,hardy no Hair Metal.Station 2 KFRR who used to call them self Alternative ,but started playind a lot of Metallica and renaned them selves 104.1(it just rocks)is also 1990 and beyond ,they have a sister station. Station3:KJFX that is a taditional classic rock ,from 1965-1989,but is weak in the 80" Hard metal and hair bands.STATION 4: KKBZ 105.1 does mainly specialize in 80's Metal and 90's Grunge bands, but plays classic rock from 1970-1999.

Personally I would play todays Active Rock (not alternative) and some of the 80s Hardrock/metal and only play the big songs of the grunge 90s.

60% New Active Rock

30% 80s Metal-Hairbands

10% Nirvana,Bush...etc etc

I think alot are tired of the same 90s alternative rock bands being played day in day out! The
demand for hearing hairbands and 80s metal on the radio (from time to time) is high up, especially
with todays active rock sounding alot like hardrock of the later 80s without the glam to it!

On behalf of both XM and Sirius radio, as well as the makers of iPod and all internet downloading companies, I have only one thing to say to you about that format you've described.

Thank you.

It's programmers like you who ensure that all those alternative media will thrive and be around long after FM radio has become as important as AM currently is.

 

[scottsvb5]

I get soo many emails, friends and whatever about what is best for a "Active Rock" station. Mostly what the young kids 16-21 want to hear. They want ...

#1 Hip-Hop
#2 Todays Metal
#3 Classic 80s Metal/Hairbands
#4 Grunge

So what does that tell ya? Play today Hard Rock Music (which is dominating most of the midsize markets) and mix in 80s metal and a 90s grunge big hit from time to time. The major markets need to completly switch over. Stop playing Alternative grunge mixed with todays Active Rock. It makes the listener not listen cause every other song 1 or another will think Suxs!

More Metal is slowly coming out onto radio. Bands like Metallica, Acdc,Disturbed,Slipknot,Shinedown,Hinder,Buckcherry,Avenged Sevenfold,Bullet for my Valentine, Theory of a Deadman, and Puddle of Mud are all over the airwaves. Also
there are Other noticeable new Bands like "BlackStoneCherry,PopEvil,All that Remains,InthisMoment,RoyalBliss, and Tantric" that are making airwaves but haven't sold much through local soundscan cause they aren't pushed enough yet to the listener. Also Classic Hard Rock bands like the new Tesla song is on the rise in markets. Yeah I said Tesla, and why play them? Cause they are the same sounding music as todays hard rock bands. Hairbands-Activerock= almost the same thing without the glam! Also it brings in the listener in their 30s-early 40s. Active rock 18-34 demo should be changed I feel to 18-44. Metallica, Acdc, Whitenake,Tesla + more 80s bands are selling and being played on todays Active Rock stations.

Alright well I said my beef and again, Todays young kids want New Metal but listen to Rap cause they say
radio doesnt play Metal enough. Also they want 80s rock and dont want to hear 90s grunge anymore. Testings are not done right cause they dont offer that music to the testing stages.. Aka hairbands and metal (outside the big names).

 

[drpickle]

I get so annoyed at these dang kids today revitalizing garbage like Loverboy and Ratt. If you are going to listen to 80's music, then listen to the Smiths or something! But, There are a few kids though who get it. My neighborhood bar jukebox alaways has the Pixies blaring. The Pixies rebirth is one of the greatest things to happen.

 

[scottsvb5]

Smiths? Was that Rock music?

 

[kenrayc]

How about the pixies ,LIKE that will be played on Classis or Active rock ,I DON"t THINK SO. JACK FM MAYBE.

 

[Biz Listener]

I get soo many emails, friends and whatever about what is best for a "Active Rock" station. Mostly what the young kids 16-21 want to hear. They want ...

#1 Hip-Hop
#2 Todays Metal
#3 Classic 80s Metal/Hairbands
#4 Grunge

So what does that tell ya?

It tells ya that the youth market is fragmented into sub cultures and cliques. The urban kids want to hear Hip-Hop, the punks and Goths want to hear Today's Metal, the Stoners want to hear Classic 80's metal/hairbands, and the clueless want to hear Grunge.

It tells you that if you pick one, you might build a loyal audience of the sub-culture that likes that one genre. It also tells you that if you attempt to play all four of those all rolled together, you're PPM is going to show your station being tuned out every three minutes.

 

[scottsvb5]

Well its already happening with alot of Alternative and some Active rock stations mixing the 2 together and some mixing in 70s classic rock. They dont mix!., and the ratings are horrible in those markets. What does mix well is 80s hard rock/metal and today metal-hardrock. Stations such as KHTQ,WJJO,WRIF, and I can list about 4-5 others I know of have high ratings ( though some are mid-size markets). They play mostly todays metal-hardrock and keep the 90s grunge to the minimum.

If you mix Hard Rock and Metal of Today (mostly) and throw in a few Hardrock and Metal of the 80s-early 90s and maybe 1 big grunge tune a hour, you will get a pure hard rock station.,, but you know, what I would do? I would play mostly 8-9 New and Current songs out of 12 per hour. Turn todays Active Rock into a Active Rock that the pop stations do, and they play alot of New Pop Music. So Active Rock would be playing alot of New HardRock Music. People want NEW ROCK, well they will get it! Then throw in 2-3 80s hardrock/metal and a grunge tune like Nirvana,Bush,etc that was a big hit! Active Rock=New Hit Rock

 

[Biz Listener]

Well its already happening with alot of Alternative and some Active rock stations mixing the 2 together and some mixing in 70s classic rock. They dont mix!., and the ratings are horrible in those markets. What does mix well is 80s hard rock/metal and today metal-hardrock. Stations such as KHTQ,WJJO,WRIF, and I can list about 4-5 others I know of have high ratings ( though some are mid-size markets). They play mostly todays metal-hardrock and keep the 90s grunge to the minimum.

Well, Duh!!! Anyone who knows anything about music can simply listen to 80's hard rock/metal and today's hard/rock metal and they'd hear that it's the same music. The songs are different, but the overall sound, chord structure, instruments, and all the other elements that define a musical genre are pretty much the same. The only difference between 80s's hard rock/metal and 2000's hard rock/metal are the recording session dates. If it wasn't for the suits running radio being clueless about music other than as an abstract commodity, the question of when the recording session was held would be regarded as totally irrelevant.

If a song sounds like hard rock/metal, then it is hard rock/metal.

 

[scottsvb5]

Biz your 100% correct. This is what needs to be pushed by not only 1 market or a few markets but almost all markets that play mainstream Rock or Active Rock. Then the sales revenue will jump cause more people out there would be hearing that music instead of the pockets of peeps!

 

[kenrayc]

I completly agree with scottsvb5 and biz ,I wish the stations would listen including in my market. Like I mention in my earlier post Station 1: KRZR is about 60% music in the 00's, 30% 90's (Bush ,Green Day and Nirvana.) but only about 10% PRE 1989 very limited on 80'S heavy metal bands.Station 2KFRR 50% 00's, 45 %
90's ,and less than 5 % pre 1989.the oonly thing they play is the occational AC/DC and Ozzy,and they run an all 90's weekend every couple of month ,there ratings are low ,below the top 20 stations.KRZR 103.7 does do better in ratings12+ in the top 10. If you want to hear 80"s you have to listen to classic rock KKBZ 105.1 the blaze or The FOX 95.7.