can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just need to be tweaked a little.
-
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
oldies death
- Thread starter krth101
- Start date
> can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
As has been frequently discussed, it's a sales problem. 60's oldies reaches a 55+ audience that advertisers deem "too old," no matter how many of them there may be or how much wealth they have. Oldies stations are under tremendous pressure to bring in younger listeners. There's persistent talk that as the huge Baby Boom generation ages this will change, but there's little evidence of that yet.
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
As has been frequently discussed, it's a sales problem. 60's oldies reaches a 55+ audience that advertisers deem "too old," no matter how many of them there may be or how much wealth they have. Oldies stations are under tremendous pressure to bring in younger listeners. There's persistent talk that as the huge Baby Boom generation ages this will change, but there's little evidence of that yet.
G
gerald159
Guest
> As has been frequently discussed, it's a sales problem.>
Isn't it amazing that advertisers think older folks have no dough? Especially since their own life experience is probably different!
For "niche" programming like chill or electronica or true oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing that we probably shouldn't discuss.
Isn't it amazing that advertisers think older folks have no dough? Especially since their own life experience is probably different!
For "niche" programming like chill or electronica or true oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing that we probably shouldn't discuss.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Very true. And, in an increasing age of instant gratification, owners, GMs and GSMs are all looking for the quickest revenue turnaround. Unfortunately, for years, Oldies has been a tough sell the older the audience got. Technology giving everybody more choices also sped up the perceived need for quick change.
This problem has been simmering for years- one thing we can blame Oldies radio in general for is the hesitancy to evolve out of the '50s and into the '70s. Oldies is THE only radio format over the past 20+ years that's been so resistant to evolution. Country, AC, rock, CHR and many more formats have evolved with the audience- Oldies did not, got stuck on '50s and '60s music (while failing to embrace '70s) and rode the horse 'till it dropped. The horse quickly began to run out of steam in '05.
>
> As has been frequently discussed, it's a sales problem.
> 60's oldies reaches a 55+ audience that advertisers deem
> "too old," no matter how many of them there may be or how
> much wealth they have. Oldies stations are under tremendous
> pressure to bring in younger listeners. There's persistent
> talk that as the huge Baby Boom generation ages this will
> change, but there's little evidence of that yet.
>
This problem has been simmering for years- one thing we can blame Oldies radio in general for is the hesitancy to evolve out of the '50s and into the '70s. Oldies is THE only radio format over the past 20+ years that's been so resistant to evolution. Country, AC, rock, CHR and many more formats have evolved with the audience- Oldies did not, got stuck on '50s and '60s music (while failing to embrace '70s) and rode the horse 'till it dropped. The horse quickly began to run out of steam in '05.
>
> As has been frequently discussed, it's a sales problem.
> 60's oldies reaches a 55+ audience that advertisers deem
> "too old," no matter how many of them there may be or how
> much wealth they have. Oldies stations are under tremendous
> pressure to bring in younger listeners. There's persistent
> talk that as the huge Baby Boom generation ages this will
> change, but there's little evidence of that yet.
>
> The horse quickly began to run
> out of steam in '05.
Wasn't that called an "iron horse" if it used steam? ;-)
> out of steam in '05.
Wasn't that called an "iron horse" if it used steam? ;-)
> [For "niche" programming like chill or electronica or true
> oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all
> kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music
> Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing
> that we probably shouldn't discuss.]
There's no problem with discussing "S" radio Oldies on this board. And "XM" Oldies are O.K., too. Satellite radio is where all of the great '50s/'60s programming is at. Terrestrial radio readily admits that.
> oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all
> kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music
> Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing
> that we probably shouldn't discuss.]
There's no problem with discussing "S" radio Oldies on this board. And "XM" Oldies are O.K., too. Satellite radio is where all of the great '50s/'60s programming is at. Terrestrial radio readily admits that.
> For "niche" programming like chill or electronica or true
> oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all
> kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music
> Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing
> that we probably shouldn't discuss.
>
Satellite radio isn't now, and isn't likely to be a major player for a long time if ever. With the red ink the 2 services are seeing, how much longer are either one gonna survive in their present form? Are there enough fans of esoteric forms of music willing to pony up $13 or more a month to make the services profitable? I'm not so sure.
Apple sells more Ipods in a month than both satellite providers sign up in a year, this doesn't even include other less famous mp3 players. In this age of instant gratification, who wants to sit thru a couple songs you don't care for to hear a favorite when you can hear nothing but your faves?
While I rarely bother with them, webcasts are a bigger threat than satellite radio. If and when wireless internet availability becomes widespread look for usage of these sources to expand.
> oldies, terrestrial radio has nothing for us. I find all
> kinds of stuff I like on iTunes radio and through Music
> Choice on my digital cable. Oh, and that "s" radio thing
> that we probably shouldn't discuss.
>
Satellite radio isn't now, and isn't likely to be a major player for a long time if ever. With the red ink the 2 services are seeing, how much longer are either one gonna survive in their present form? Are there enough fans of esoteric forms of music willing to pony up $13 or more a month to make the services profitable? I'm not so sure.
Apple sells more Ipods in a month than both satellite providers sign up in a year, this doesn't even include other less famous mp3 players. In this age of instant gratification, who wants to sit thru a couple songs you don't care for to hear a favorite when you can hear nothing but your faves?
While I rarely bother with them, webcasts are a bigger threat than satellite radio. If and when wireless internet availability becomes widespread look for usage of these sources to expand.
Re: why oldies didn't evolve
> This problem has been simmering for years- one thing we can
> blame Oldies radio in general for is the hesitancy to evolve
> out of the '50s and into the '70s. Oldies is THE only radio
> format over the past 20+ years that's been so resistant to
> evolution.
There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar, mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his numbers promptly went back up. His station was eventually flipped to another format in search of young demos. This may simply be a problem that couldn't be fixed.
> This problem has been simmering for years- one thing we can
> blame Oldies radio in general for is the hesitancy to evolve
> out of the '50s and into the '70s. Oldies is THE only radio
> format over the past 20+ years that's been so resistant to
> evolution.
There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar, mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his numbers promptly went back up. His station was eventually flipped to another format in search of young demos. This may simply be a problem that couldn't be fixed.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
oldies didn't evolve
Actually, a Coleman Research Oldies study quite conclusively found that most current Oldies fans embraced THE RIGHT '70s music a lot better than those in their 40's took to a lot of the pre-1965 music Oldies had been playing.
When I hear things like "all familiar, mass-appeal hits picked for their compatability" I shudder- that criteria, but according to who? The problem with that is that radio programmers' perception of "compatible" may not match the listeners' view. Doing a music test, having the "right" people in the test (those who would very likely give an oldies station playing 60s and 70s music a shot), then making sure the 60s music still in the mix is the right 60s music.
That means no "early 60s sound" from mid/late 60s songs, like The Boy From NYC by Ad-Libs (a doo-wop record), Gary & The Playboys, Herman's Hermits, Sugar Sugar- the super-sweet most-poppy songs from the 60s do not resonate with most people in their 40's. Flip side, none of that 60s-sounding seventies pop, like J5, Osmonds, Partridge Family, Carpenters, Neil Diamond, Streisand, Manilow- absolute death.
Most Oldies stations also waited WAY too long. When Katrina hit New Orleans, the time to beef up the levees wasn't when the storm was approaching- it was in the years before the groundwork needed to begin.
>
> There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who
> was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies
> station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely
> owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he
> started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and
> a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar,
> mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the
> 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went
> DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many
> times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core
> audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the
> 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his
> numbers promptly went back up. His station was eventually
> flipped to another format in search of young demos. This
> may simply be a problem that couldn't be fixed.
>
Actually, a Coleman Research Oldies study quite conclusively found that most current Oldies fans embraced THE RIGHT '70s music a lot better than those in their 40's took to a lot of the pre-1965 music Oldies had been playing.
When I hear things like "all familiar, mass-appeal hits picked for their compatability" I shudder- that criteria, but according to who? The problem with that is that radio programmers' perception of "compatible" may not match the listeners' view. Doing a music test, having the "right" people in the test (those who would very likely give an oldies station playing 60s and 70s music a shot), then making sure the 60s music still in the mix is the right 60s music.
That means no "early 60s sound" from mid/late 60s songs, like The Boy From NYC by Ad-Libs (a doo-wop record), Gary & The Playboys, Herman's Hermits, Sugar Sugar- the super-sweet most-poppy songs from the 60s do not resonate with most people in their 40's. Flip side, none of that 60s-sounding seventies pop, like J5, Osmonds, Partridge Family, Carpenters, Neil Diamond, Streisand, Manilow- absolute death.
Most Oldies stations also waited WAY too long. When Katrina hit New Orleans, the time to beef up the levees wasn't when the storm was approaching- it was in the years before the groundwork needed to begin.
>
> There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who
> was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies
> station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely
> owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he
> started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and
> a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar,
> mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the
> 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went
> DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many
> times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core
> audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the
> 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his
> numbers promptly went back up. His station was eventually
> flipped to another format in search of young demos. This
> may simply be a problem that couldn't be fixed.
>
Re: They would have if the CBS-FM route was followed
To add to what you say, WCBS-FM was evolving many years before any other oldies stations were. I have a tape of Bob Shannon circa 1994 talking up a "new oldie" (10 or so years old), "Strong Man" by Rick Astley and one from the same day
of Max Kinkle doing a kick-ass (wow was he on that night, wish I rolled more tape that day) talk up of "Living in America" by James Brown.
Also, until the early 90's, CBS-FM did a "yesterday and today" countdown where, as I recall, on Tuesday nights from 7-11 they would play that weeks Top 20 (I think they used the Hot AC not the CHR charts from radio and records) and
sprinkle in oldies, for example, they would play the BoyzIIMen version of "In the Still Of the Night" and then the original version of it, or they would play a rap song by Sugarhill Gang on a specialty show like "Thursday Night 70's" and then a Sylvia Robinson song (she put the Sugarhill Gang together). They put it all together as one wonderfull pop music continuom, new and old, emphasis on the oldies of course, but at the same time making sure the station didnt just sound like a time machine.
Digression interesting article about that here - long -
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051031roco01
So CBS-FM was doing it. But what did all the "radio experts" back then say???? That it was a terrible mistake! That Joe McCoy was a fool for doing this, etc, etc, etc.
And now look at where we are.
To add to what you say, WCBS-FM was evolving many years before any other oldies stations were. I have a tape of Bob Shannon circa 1994 talking up a "new oldie" (10 or so years old), "Strong Man" by Rick Astley and one from the same day
of Max Kinkle doing a kick-ass (wow was he on that night, wish I rolled more tape that day) talk up of "Living in America" by James Brown.
Also, until the early 90's, CBS-FM did a "yesterday and today" countdown where, as I recall, on Tuesday nights from 7-11 they would play that weeks Top 20 (I think they used the Hot AC not the CHR charts from radio and records) and
sprinkle in oldies, for example, they would play the BoyzIIMen version of "In the Still Of the Night" and then the original version of it, or they would play a rap song by Sugarhill Gang on a specialty show like "Thursday Night 70's" and then a Sylvia Robinson song (she put the Sugarhill Gang together). They put it all together as one wonderfull pop music continuom, new and old, emphasis on the oldies of course, but at the same time making sure the station didnt just sound like a time machine.
Digression interesting article about that here - long -
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051031roco01
So CBS-FM was doing it. But what did all the "radio experts" back then say???? That it was a terrible mistake! That Joe McCoy was a fool for doing this, etc, etc, etc.
And now look at where we are.
"Apple sells more Ipods in a month than both satellite providers sign up in a year, this doesn't even include other less famous mp3 players. In this age of instant gratification, who wants to sit thru a couple songs you don't care for to hear a favorite when you can hear nothing but your faves?"
I think they servce slightly different wants and needs. Satelite radio is good for spoken content (Baseball games if you are outside of your hometown, etc.) and for channels you want to listen to occasionally, but arent a big enough fan of to load your I-Pod up with tunes. I cant say I like Reggae music, but once every few weeks on a Friday if I'm in my convertable driving home on a Friday, yeah, I'll get some reggae going or some kick-ass metal or some "its time to party" music. But I wont download those into my i-pod because my need for that music is too rare.
I think they servce slightly different wants and needs. Satelite radio is good for spoken content (Baseball games if you are outside of your hometown, etc.) and for channels you want to listen to occasionally, but arent a big enough fan of to load your I-Pod up with tunes. I cant say I like Reggae music, but once every few weeks on a Friday if I'm in my convertable driving home on a Friday, yeah, I'll get some reggae going or some kick-ass metal or some "its time to party" music. But I wont download those into my i-pod because my need for that music is too rare.
> can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
certainly nothing pre-1964, but still 60s music on WODS Boston. I can't
quote actual numbers but WODS is currently tied with WJMN hip-hop for
highest all-music station in Boston. Yes, oldies!
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
certainly nothing pre-1964, but still 60s music on WODS Boston. I can't
quote actual numbers but WODS is currently tied with WJMN hip-hop for
highest all-music station in Boston. Yes, oldies!
My own preferences here. Music changed. Seventies top 40 was all right mixed into hits from the sixties and fifties. But after the seventies there was less music around that I liked. by 1985, there were few songs that I cared for.
If music would have stayed good, then newer stuff could have been played along with the golden oldies.
I guess most other people have a different taste than I have.
> can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
If music would have stayed good, then newer stuff could have been played along with the golden oldies.
I guess most other people have a different taste than I have.
> can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
> 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
> 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying that
> the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
> need to be tweaked a little.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> > can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> > oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> > stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
>
> > 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
>
> > 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying
> that
> > the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
>
> > need to be tweaked a little.
> >
> certainly nothing pre-1964, but still 60s music on WODS
> Boston. I can't
> quote actual numbers but WODS is currently tied with WJMN
> hip-hop for
> highest all-music station in Boston. Yes, oldies!
>
WODS is one of the exception stations, where it is #2 25-54. Most oldies stations are not even in the top 10 in the larger markets in the sales demos.
> > oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> > stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
>
> > 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
>
> > 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying
> that
> > the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
>
> > need to be tweaked a little.
> >
> certainly nothing pre-1964, but still 60s music on WODS
> Boston. I can't
> quote actual numbers but WODS is currently tied with WJMN
> hip-hop for
> highest all-music station in Boston. Yes, oldies!
>
WODS is one of the exception stations, where it is #2 25-54. Most oldies stations are not even in the top 10 in the larger markets in the sales demos.
A
apco25
Guest
> My own preferences here. Music changed. Seventies top 40
> was all right mixed into hits from the sixties and fifties.
> But after the seventies there was less music around that I
> liked. by 1985, there were few songs that I cared for.
>
> If music would have stayed good, then newer stuff could have
> been played along with the golden oldies.
>
> I guess most other people have a different taste than I
> have.
>
>
> > can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> > oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> > stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
>
> > 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
>
> > 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying
> that
> > the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
>
> > need to be tweaked a little.
> >
>
You made a good logical point. But let me correct you, it was 1986 when it started to decline. Then it started to splinter, and then the vinyl hit 45's were gone from the racks. Then the mergers. and then no more potential golden oldies.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by apco25 on 02/26/06 07:47 AM.</FONT></P>
> was all right mixed into hits from the sixties and fifties.
> But after the seventies there was less music around that I
> liked. by 1985, there were few songs that I cared for.
>
> If music would have stayed good, then newer stuff could have
> been played along with the golden oldies.
>
> I guess most other people have a different taste than I
> have.
>
>
> > can somebody tell me why it was decided late in 2005 that
> > oldies before 1970 had run their course ? with major
> > stations like wcbs, kfrc and krth all moving into 70's and
>
> > 80's music, most of the 60's and certainly all of the late
>
> > 50's titles were pushed under the rug. are they saying
> that
> > the previous format as it existed is dead - or did it just
>
> > need to be tweaked a little.
> >
>
You made a good logical point. But let me correct you, it was 1986 when it started to decline. Then it started to splinter, and then the vinyl hit 45's were gone from the racks. Then the mergers. and then no more potential golden oldies.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by apco25 on 02/26/06 07:47 AM.</FONT></P>
Re: why oldies didn't evolve
> There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who
> was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies
> station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely
> owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he
> started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and
> a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar,
> mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the
> 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went
> DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many
> times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core
> audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the
> 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his
> numbers promptly went back up.
I wouldn't consider the audience for 50s/early 60s music to be boomers...I'm at the older end of that generation, and 'most anything pre-1962 is before my time & not something I can really relate to. The British invasion was really the beginning of the boomers' music. Anything before that would be the tail end of the depression generation (whatever it was called).
Depending on when in the 90s your friend made his changes, he may have been jumping the gun a bit...50s music was still viable thru the first half of the decade (though he was right in seeing problem on the horizon). Maybe the time wasn't quite right when he made his changes.
> There is a good reason for this. I have a close friend who
> was PD of a highly-rated medium-market "cash cow" oldies
> station in the 90's. He was top 3 25-24 and absolutely
> owned 45-54. He saw the problem coming. At one point, he
> started dropping the 50's and early 60's and adding 70's and
> a few carefully-chosen 80's titles. All familiar,
> mass-appeal hits picked for their compatibility with the
> 60's stuff he was playing. What happened? His ratings went
> DOWN. The few new younger listeners he attracted were many
> times over offset by the drop in TSL among his core
> audience. His "Baby Boomer" P1's didn't want to hear the
> 70's stuff. So he returned to 50's and 60's only and his
> numbers promptly went back up.
I wouldn't consider the audience for 50s/early 60s music to be boomers...I'm at the older end of that generation, and 'most anything pre-1962 is before my time & not something I can really relate to. The British invasion was really the beginning of the boomers' music. Anything before that would be the tail end of the depression generation (whatever it was called).
Depending on when in the 90s your friend made his changes, he may have been jumping the gun a bit...50s music was still viable thru the first half of the decade (though he was right in seeing problem on the horizon). Maybe the time wasn't quite right when he made his changes.
Re: They would have if the CBS-FM route was followed
> Also, until the early 90's, CBS-FM did a "yesterday and
> today" countdown where, as I recall, on Tuesday nights from
> 7-11 they would play that weeks Top 20 (I think they used
> the Hot AC not the CHR charts from radio and records) and
> sprinkle in oldies, for example, they would play the
> BoyzIIMen version of "In the Still Of the Night" and then
> the original version of it, or they would play a rap song by
> Sugarhill Gang on a specialty show like "Thursday Night
> 70's" and then a Sylvia Robinson song (she put the Sugarhill
> Gang together). They put it all together as one wonderfull
> pop music continuom, new and old, emphasis on the oldies of
> course, but at the same time making sure the station didnt
> just sound like a time machine.
But WCBS played currents from the beginning. They got away with it, I doubt it would have worked much of anywhere else. I've never been to NY...did WCBS have any in-format competition? If not, that could explain part of it too.
> Also, until the early 90's, CBS-FM did a "yesterday and
> today" countdown where, as I recall, on Tuesday nights from
> 7-11 they would play that weeks Top 20 (I think they used
> the Hot AC not the CHR charts from radio and records) and
> sprinkle in oldies, for example, they would play the
> BoyzIIMen version of "In the Still Of the Night" and then
> the original version of it, or they would play a rap song by
> Sugarhill Gang on a specialty show like "Thursday Night
> 70's" and then a Sylvia Robinson song (she put the Sugarhill
> Gang together). They put it all together as one wonderfull
> pop music continuom, new and old, emphasis on the oldies of
> course, but at the same time making sure the station didnt
> just sound like a time machine.
But WCBS played currents from the beginning. They got away with it, I doubt it would have worked much of anywhere else. I've never been to NY...did WCBS have any in-format competition? If not, that could explain part of it too.
Re: They would have if the CBS-FM route was followed
Not head-on. Just some weak suburban stations. I remember a station in Elizabeth, NJ at 1660 AM in the early nineties.
Bruce Morrow owned NJ 1530. I think WGSM 740 on Long Island was oldies.
I also remember the short-lived Saturday night oldies show on WABC back in 1982. And The Time Machine on 66 WNBC from 1986-1988. That was weekends and overnights.
WFUV has oldies shows.
No other FM station in the city played oldies full time since CBS-FM started.
> But WCBS played currents from the beginning. They got away
> with it, I doubt it would have worked much of anywhere else.
> I've never been to NY...did WCBS have any in-format
> competition? If not, that could explain part of it too.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Not head-on. Just some weak suburban stations. I remember a station in Elizabeth, NJ at 1660 AM in the early nineties.
Bruce Morrow owned NJ 1530. I think WGSM 740 on Long Island was oldies.
I also remember the short-lived Saturday night oldies show on WABC back in 1982. And The Time Machine on 66 WNBC from 1986-1988. That was weekends and overnights.
WFUV has oldies shows.
No other FM station in the city played oldies full time since CBS-FM started.
> But WCBS played currents from the beginning. They got away
> with it, I doubt it would have worked much of anywhere else.
> I've never been to NY...did WCBS have any in-format
> competition? If not, that could explain part of it too.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Re: oldies didn't evolve
>
> When I hear things like "all familiar, mass-appeal hits
> picked for their compatability" I shudder- that criteria,
> but according to who? The problem with that is that radio
> programmers' perception of "compatible" may not match the
> listeners' view.
Well, the same could be said for "Jack", and you seem to be a big fan of that mish-mash.
>
> When I hear things like "all familiar, mass-appeal hits
> picked for their compatability" I shudder- that criteria,
> but according to who? The problem with that is that radio
> programmers' perception of "compatible" may not match the
> listeners' view.
Well, the same could be said for "Jack", and you seem to be a big fan of that mish-mash.
- Status