And play the same repertoire in about the same style. And everyone who goes to the shows knows that.
-
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
October Ratings
- Thread starter SirRoxalot
- Start date
In the case of third rate acts like Skynyrd, you're right. Add the Beer Goggle vision and nobody cares. People are essentially paying to see a Cover band with these shows.
If a band toured as "The Beatles" without John, Paul, George, and Ringo, that's a totally different case. That would be fraudulent advertising...
The Beatles broke up, and ceased to exist. But most of those bands like Skynyrd have direct and continuous connections with the original band.
Only because the trademark is owned by The Beatles. In the case of LS, the trademark is owned by the current touring band. The lead singer is the younger brother of Ronnie Van Zant. Some of the current members joined after the plane crash over 45 years ago. The touring band is legally allowed to use the name, the logo, and the songs. But there are lots of similar situations. Journey isn't the original band. Kansas isn't the original band. Lots of bands do this. The founders are either dead or retired. But the music still lives, and fans of the music enjoy it.
However, to clarify, the trademark still exists, and this new song that was just released had the participation of the surviving members or their estates.
In that sense, using technology and AI, every band going back to the era of the first recordings still exists in theory. Interesting legal, ethical and marketing concepts.-
There's a big discussion going on about Prince and the hours of unreleased material that still exists at Paisley Park. The AI was a factor for The Beatles because the cassette tape that it was based on wasn't multi-track. So they needed to separate the voice from the piano. That took AI. The result is amazing. The voice is crystal clear with no trace of either the piano, or the room noise.
In any case, people often say the music lives forever, and it can if its performed and broadcast. Some radio stations keep the music alive, as do musicians who have legal performance rights.
I wonder if it’s a generational thing. I grew up in the 1970s a fan of Top 40 before transitioning to album rock. But in my 20s, my appreciation grew for my father’s music. I became a fan of WADV. I didn’t stop listening to AOR. But I did buy albums from Frank Sinatra, Count Basie and Oscar Peterson. To this day, I enjoy listening to Ralph Irene’s Saturday show featuring the Great American Songbook. So, perhaps today’s 20-year-olds are mirroring my experience from “back in the day.” I was ”forced” to listen to my Dad’s big band station. Eventually, I became a fan. Today’s kids were “forced” to listen to 97 Rock in the car with Dad. Now, they’re enjoying the music.
So... is classic rock still
classic rock?
when I was a teenager,
as I'm turning 50 later this year.
by definition - Classic rock in 2023
would be Guns and Roses, Vintage metallica and LinkedIn Park.
father time wins again.
classic rock?
when I was a teenager,
as I'm turning 50 later this year.
by definition - Classic rock in 2023
would be Guns and Roses, Vintage metallica and LinkedIn Park.
father time wins again.
"Classic Rock" is about the most vague term among all format descriptors. While "classic hits" means gold from the late 70's on, classic rock can be anything from late 60's "flower power" rock to stuff no more than 20 years old.
I guess the answer to your question is "yes".
"Classic Rock" is Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Beatles, Who, Grateful Dead, Tom Petty, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, and countless others. That's a different conversation from what a Radio format chooses to play. In terms of Radio, they have been eliminating most 60s music for quite a while and adding more 90s titles. People who were in high school in the 90s are now the target audience. Radio thinks that playing music from their formative years is the answer. It may or may not work. In the case of WBUF, it has failed miserably...
No to the first two, and only pre-"Revolver" for the Beatles. Berry, Holly and the early Beatles were rock 'n' roll acts, and their music today is referred to as rock 'n' roll or oldies, not rock or classic rock. When rock 'n' roll changed from highly rhythmic music primarily for dancing into "serious" heavy/folkie/artsy music primarily for listening (or taking drugs to), it became rock.
Everything The Beatles did from "Revolver" and on is Definitive Classic Rock. "I Am The Walrus", "Helter Skelter", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and so on. Maybe you meant early Beatles like "She Loves You". "Revolver" was one album that helped influence all the stuff that followed
(Psychedelia and so forth).
Whatever descriptive term people want to use, Berry and Holly are CLASSIC artists, so it's Classic Rock & Roll...
Considering I spent 8.5 years at 97 Rock, I feel I'm qualified to answer this question.
"Classic Rock" as defined by the corporate commercial radio industry is effectively 1965-1989, give or take. The Beatles - Just Before Grunge.
97 Rock had a brief flirtation with "the 90's" for 1 ratings book circa 2016/2017. And it was met with criticism. It made elder Millennials and Gen Xers "feel old". "Wait, Nirvana is Classic Rock now?? ugh".
And by brief flirtation, we played 1 90's song every 4 hours or so. It was one of four options "Fell On Black Days", "Everlong", "Come As You Are" or "Interstate Love Song".
But it's not just the year of release. It's a sound thing, for better or worse.
This is just my opinion, but I detest all things 80's hair band shlock. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Journey, Poison, etc. Woof. All shlocky and terrible. I get those bands will still draw 40,000 something people every year forever. And yeah "huge hits". But it's just so damn cheesy. Nothing substantive in any of those songs.
80's alternative, something 97 Rock is loathe to acknowledge, is just such a better well to pull from. Tears for Fears, Depeche Mode, New Order, The Cure, REM, The Replacements, The Clash, Talking Heads, etc? SOME of that gets a spin (Burning Down the House, Rock the Casbah), but 97 Rock will NEVER play "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". I've literally never met a human who doesn't think that song isn't great.
It's a vibe thing. The men spinning Motley Crue records in high School beat up the kids that liked The Cure in high school. So, ya know, you're a ***** Low T beta cuck if you like 80's alternative rock. And the one thing "Classic Rock" can never, ever, be is not "man's man". Dumb. But true.
Some old man in 1997 decided 'THIS' is "classic rock" and 'THIS" isn't. And it's not gonna change.
Interesting discussion, this Classic Rock thing. It comes down to "What box and packaging designed by corporate suits suits your taste?" I like Mabeline as much as I like Come As You Are; Day Tripper as much as Rock You Like a Hurricane; Jailhouse Rock as much as Pump It Up (an "Elvis" twin spin.) I like Let The Day Begin (The Call) and It's My Life. Right, and Careless Whisper, which is one of the best produced songs with a saxophone lead that's up there with Baker Street. On a Classic Rock station, those last two songs are incompatible, but they work on Classic Hits, at least to some degree, although Selector and Music Master might think otherwise. All these songs are on my 'owned music' playlist, but I doubt those songs would be played in the same set on a commercial station, let alone back-to-back... which is why I cume my personal playlist more than the local Classic Rock, Classic Hits or Oldies stations.
You are using an analytical approach that is not what ad agencies want. They want format identifiers that give a broad-brush color to each station. That is why Nielsen has a relatively short lit of approved format names. "Classic Rock & Roll" is not one of them; "oldies" and "classic hits" are and they are well defined.
Everything in the Top 40 genre from about 1955 to the later 60's falls into "Oldies" in the radio world. When Top 40 started its path in the very later 60's into AOR on one side and, later, AC on the other, the mainstream material has become "oldies" as well.
To differentiate between grandpa's station and dad's station, the radio industry started calling 80's based pop gold "classic hits" so ad agencies would not think their audience was "too old". "Oldies" became a kiss of death name if a station wanted to sell to agencies.
MusicMaster and Selector don't think. They process. If you want to call "Baker Street" as "country" in either program, you can. It won't care and will simply use the codes you set up to program the song.
"Classic Rock" is one of the set of acceptable format names Nielsen (and Arbitron before it) accepted as format descriptors. Each station selects one of those names, and that is what appears in the data for the station in the published ratings.
A "classic rock" station can play only 80's to the early 2000's, or 1967 to 1988 or whatever else they pick. There is no written definition for each format. Agencies don't care other than wanting a general idea of each station's format. They don't care if you do or don't play Bon Jovi.
I was involved in getting a format I co-created accepted as a separate and accepted Arbitron category. There had to be, at the time, at least 20 stations in the format under more than one owner. If most of the owners accepted the format name, Arbitron accepted it.
Last edited:
To you, they are "classic". To those who don't like the music, the songs or the artists, they are just "old".
The first two are not "Classic Rock", the third is partially "Classic Rock". That is per the standards the radio industry has accepted in conjunction with Arbitron/Nielsen.
A single bad station does not indicate a failed format. And, again, in radio music types are defined so as to give advertisers (and particularly ad agencies) guidance on what each station does.
KRCD in LA does not say, on the air, "we are Spanish Adult Hits". The format names we use for sales and ratings are handled to make it easier for advertisers to pick stations to advertise on.
It is what it is.
Last month, the Beatles and Rolling Stones released new music, and classic rock stations all over the country played them. Playing new songs by classic rock artists is breaking format. Does this mean anytime an old rocker puts out new music, it should get played? Where do you draw the line? These are the questions facing programmers now.
A station that calls itself "classic" is stuck with a narrow list of songs that test well. If they never rotate in some newer music, they'll sound stagnant and boring. If they play new music, they have to decide how to present it in a way that doesn't alienate some listeners.
The reality is that we're at a point where the old formats don't fit with the way people listen to music. They don't listen to genres, they listen to songs they like. That may mean playing a country song on a Top 40 station. So if radio wants to keep evolving, and keep attracting new listeners, it needs to remember the role radio plays in all of this, and focus on who they're trying to attract, rather than fitting a format.
- Status