Oldies "work" in PA. Why not Atlanta?

[landtuna]

If you look at all genres of music today, I think that just as many artists were influenced by dance/club music of the 70s as were influenced by 60s/70s classic rock - and a lot of artists were influenced by 80s Pop, 90s Alternative, and 90s Hip-Hop - and I'm sure that in the upcoming years we'll hear about artists that were influenced by acts of the 2000s

Popular music today has a beat and that's about it. If you call that influence then I agree but then again, that can apply to any music age. The fact that music has pretty much hit the crapper is evidence that no such influence exists. Take away the pop idiots like Bleeper and the videos and the music would perish quickly.

I'm sure that 60s rock seemed extremely popular at the time, but a lot of that, I'm sure, had to do with the fact that there were so many baby-boomers coming of age as these bands were coming out

One reason was that music in those days wasn't as fragmented as it is today so the RnR acts captured more total bodies than an act does today. I don't think it was total number of Boomers that made the difference though. There are many more people living in the USA today than in the 60's. The big difference is in the demographics.

 

[FredLeonard]

I did not assume we were talking about advertisers - just that "30 years ago" meant something very different in the 60's than it did in the 90's.

Also not sure what you meant by "a mile wide but only a foot deep". I would have applied that statement to music of the 40's.

I'm not so sure. 30 years ago means something different when you're 20 than when you're 60.

The main difference between the world before 1955 and after is that before 1955 parents and their children could do the same dances to the same music.

 

[landtuna]

The main difference between the world before 1955 and after is that before 1955 parents and their children could do the same dances to the same music.

I dunno. When I see pictures of dances in the 20's, 30's and 40's and compare those to what I watched on American Bandstand in the 50's we seemed a lot tamer than our parents. ;D

I remember teaching my grandmother how to Be-bop in the mid-50's. She did OK but needed to be cooled down afterward. I'll bet my mom and dad are still laughing.

 

[atlantaboy]

If you look at all genres of music today, I think that just as many artists were influenced by dance/club music of the 70s as were influenced by 60s/70s classic rock - and a lot of artists were influenced by 80s Pop, 90s Alternative, and 90s Hip-Hop - and I'm sure that in the upcoming years we'll hear about artists that were influenced by acts of the 2000s

Popular music today has a beat and that's about it. If you call that influence then I agree but then again, that can apply to any music age. The fact that music has pretty much hit the crapper is evidence that no such influence exists.

There's a lot more music out there than just CHR - sure, there's "dumb pop" music today, but there was also "dumb pop" music back in the 60s and 70s as well - 3 chords on a guitar with cliche lyrics isn't any more musically substantial IMO than 3 chords with a dance beat and cliche lyrics

 

[landtuna]

There's a lot more music out there than just CHR - sure, there's "dumb pop" music today, but there was also "dumb pop" music back in the 60s and 70s as well - 3 chords on a guitar with cliche lyrics isn't any more musically substantial IMO than 3 chords with a dance beat and cliche lyrics

We are talking about CHR (or what we called Top-40 back in the day). I agree there are other genres today that are very good that for the most part did not exist in the 50's.

Today's pop music performers are long on visuals and very short on audio talent. There are a few exceptions but in both CHR and Country the bar is a lot lower today than in years past. That is not to say that everything back then was good because it certainly wasn't - most girl groups were terrible and even groups like the Beatles put out a bunch of lousy sounding material - and their early stuff was as you describe.

 

[michael hagerty]

First of all why does the music of the 60's,70's or even 80's need to be dated. It's all styled based. Good music is just good music PERIOD. I was in Home Depot yesterday and the music on the PA system was all 60's music. Why is that? Because it's good music that most everyone like's reguardless of age. You look at commercials on tv these days and a lot of music they use is from the 60's and 70's. Who are they aiming at?? The trouble with radio is that you have sales people who can't sell. True Oldies 106.7 had as much as a five share in book, I remember Shannon talking about it. I know if one of the translators just put True Oldies on it let it rip they would get better ratings than the crap that's on them now.

You can only play X number of songs per hour. As a group of people age into the Classic Hits demo who want to hear more of the songs they grew up with in the 80s, the only way to play more is to play less of the music that appealed to the older audience now aging out of the demo.

If True Oldies had a five share in Atlanta, I'm stunned and I'd want to see the demo breakouts.

 

[michael hagerty]

First of all why does the music of the 60's,70's or even 80's need to be dated. It's all styled based. Good music is just good music PERIOD. I was in Home Depot yesterday and the music on the PA system was all 60's music. Why is that? Because it's good music that most everyone like's reguardless of age. You look at commercials on tv these days and a lot of music they use is from the 60's and 70's. Who are they aiming at?? The trouble with radio is that you have sales people who can't sell. True Oldies 106.7 had as much as a five share in book, I remember Shannon talking about it. I know if one of the translators just put True Oldies on it let it rip they would get better ratings than the crap that's on them now.

Classic hits is not Oldies. Oldies is not classic hits. Just as Oldies wasn't standards or nostalgia.

These are distinct formats. Each is generation or age cohort based.

People start paying attention to current popular music sometime in elementary school. They continue through high school, college and any single-dating years. People get married and start having families, they start listening to "the music you grew up with," "the music you sing along to." Whatever that was. They stay stuck in a musical time warp. Much the same applies to fashions and grooming styles.

A sure sign of old age is when somebody starts saying "that music is crap" and "my music is good." And wondering why radio stations don't play "good music" instead of all that crap. I'm a baby boomer and some of you are starting to sound like my grandparents. They didn't get Elvis, the Beatles or any top 40 and wondered why kids didn't appreciate Bing Crosby or Lawrence Welk.

Can Boomer music get ratings? Maybe, if the stations that used to run had kept at it. Radio stations can keep an audience but it's impossible any more to get an audience. But even if they can get "ratings," they won't get advertisers. They won't make money. You can't go to the bank with ratings. That's why standards died. And real oldies died. And talk is terminal. Elvis has left the building and Boomers have left the money demos.

Oldies are available online. Enjoy.

Frank, I agree with everything except that keeping an audience isn't easy, either. And if Boomer-targeting stations had stuck with it, and had been lucky enough to maintain listener levels, there still would have been the ad sales issue to contend with.

 

[michael hagerty]

The Hippie Radio in Nashville is on a small suburban signal that covers 1/3 of the market (at best).

Not saying they would be successful on a full market station, but their limited coverage area would certainly have a huge effect on ratings and billings.

Might have a huge effect on ratings and billings. It's also possible that putting it on a full-power stick would move the needle very little. But your fundamental point is dead on and rule number one of radio: If they can't hear you, they can't listen.

 

[michael hagerty]

Disco is excepted because it served primarily as dance/club music and had a very limited lifespan.

If you look at all genres of music today, I think that just as many artists were influenced by dance/club music of the 70s as were influenced by 60s/70s classic rock - and a lot of artists were influenced by 80s Pop, 90s Alternative, and 90s Hip-Hop - and I'm sure that in the upcoming years we'll hear about artists that were influenced by acts of the 2000s

I'm sure that 60s rock seemed extremely popular at the time, but a lot of that, I'm sure, had to do with the fact that there were so many baby-boomers coming of age as these bands were coming out

Given that, apart from the immediate post-disco backlash of AC and Urban Cowboy music, rhythm and dance has occupied a prominent place in pop music since disco's arrival. I'd argue that is in fact, disco's influence...including the lesson learned at the end that it cannot all sound the same and survive.

 

[michael hagerty]

No excuse not to have one in ATL. There is always an underperforming station that can pick up the format and run it on the cheap. Too many markets in the country now have classic hits stations at or near the top of the ratings.

No excuse?? What about this- 1) ads AREN'T BEING SOLD ON CLASSIC HITS STATIONS LIKE THEY USED TO. 2) Atlanta is a young city. There's a reason why every single classic hits startup of the last 10-15 years hasn't lasted long term.

Classic Hits (70s and increasingly 80s based) sells well. 60s based Oldies has a sales challenge because of the average age of the audience.

 

[michael hagerty]

"Everywhere" is a big place. In the Top 15 markets that have Classic Hits stations, it's absolutely fading away. And one-tenth of the nation's population lives in the top two metro areas, New York and Los Angeles.

Noo Yawk is probably closer to the average demo of the country as a whole while El A is definitely not. What used to be white, middle-class no longer exists in most of El A and, as such, music tastes will change. The kids I grew up with, white, Hispanic or Black all listened to the same music and most of us still do (based on surveys taken at the past three high school reunions). Music has fragmented considerably since then though so I would not expect future polls to match those of the past.

In any event, those of us not living in Noo Yawk or El A probably don't gib a chit what they listen to as their days of influence on our music ended long ago.

And they'll be replaced by grown adults who don't agree with you that their oldies are crap.

I don't expect them to. I will just point out the difference in the generations and let them sweat the numbers for themselves.

All I know is Dick Clark is rolling over in his grave.

1. The point about large markets (which I included in my original comment) was not their individual demographics but that, when you add up the people in the top 15 markets, there's about 25% of the country's population. Expand that to the top 30 and you're closing in on 40%. So if stations in market 125 and under are still playing mostly 60s music, that doesn't mean a significant portion of the American population is listening.

2. Guy Lombardo felt the same way about Dick Clark. Tempus fugit.

 

[michael hagerty]

Music form the 1960s is now close to 50 years old - that would be the equivalent of a station back in the 80s playing music from the 1930s

That statement has no meaning.

The music of the 60's (in addition to some from the late 50's, the 70's besides Disco and some from the early 80's) is unique in the history of music. The popularity, innovation, technology and presentation far exceeded that of any other period in recorded history. That music had an effect on the social fabric of most of the world unprecedented in history. There are many reasons this generation of music will live for a considerable time and why there is no comparison to music from earlier or later generations.

No...it has meaning. For while 60s music has more resonance with younger generations 50 years on than music of the 30s did in the 1980s, the bulk of the audience, then and now, is outside the demographic advertisers seek. There are not enough younger (and in this case we're talking 40-50 year olds) people who appreciate the music in large doses to produce salable ratings. Once outside the people who experienced it first-hand, 60s music's appeal is a mile wide, but only about a foot deep. That's an improvement over 30's music in the 80s, where it was a foot wide and an inch deep, but it's still not a business case.

I did not assume we were talking about advertisers - just that "30 years ago" meant something very different in the 60's than it did in the 90's.

Also not sure what you meant by "a mile wide but only a foot deep". I would have applied that statement to music of the 40's.

It all comes back to the advertisers. If we're talking commercially viable formats, that's the key factor.

Let me see if I can clarify my comment. All music has a "tail"...people born late in it or after it who appreciate it. Some music has a long tail (people liking music from 30 or 40 years before they were born), some has a short tail (10-15 years).

My point, and we can include 40s with 30s or whatever, is that, 50 years on, there was a smaller number of 40 year olds who liked it and would listen to it regularly on the radio than there is for 60s music. But neither is a business case in itself.

30s music in the 1980s for people then in their 40s would have been a foot wide and an inch deep...the water running onto the sidewalk when you water your lawn. Most 40 year olds weren't really into it, nor would they listen regularly.

60s now for people in their 40s is a mile wide and a foot deep. Most people in their 40s have some affinity for some 60s music, but not exclusively or even equally to the music they grew up with.

Music people in their 40s grew up with is Lake Tahoe...five miles wide and 100 feet deep. When Oldies, and now Classic Hits, works, it works because it is providing musical comfort food to people just entering an age where there's value in memories from their teens and 20s. Let that get out of balance (songs the audience doesn't relate to or not enough of the ones they do), and the water level drops.

To be successful, you need the lake, not the river that barely gets your legs wet or the trickle on the sidewalk.

 

[michael hagerty]

If you look at all genres of music today, I think that just as many artists were influenced by dance/club music of the 70s as were influenced by 60s/70s classic rock - and a lot of artists were influenced by 80s Pop, 90s Alternative, and 90s Hip-Hop - and I'm sure that in the upcoming years we'll hear about artists that were influenced by acts of the 2000s

Popular music today has a beat and that's about it. If you call that influence then I agree but then again, that can apply to any music age. The fact that music has pretty much hit the crapper is evidence that no such influence exists. Take away the pop idiots like Bleeper and the videos and the music would perish quickly.

I'm sure that 60s rock seemed extremely popular at the time, but a lot of that, I'm sure, had to do with the fact that there were so many baby-boomers coming of age as these bands were coming out

One reason was that music in those days wasn't as fragmented as it is today so the RnR acts captured more total bodies than an act does today. I don't think it was total number of Boomers that made the difference though. There are many more people living in the USA today than in the 60's. The big difference is in the demographics.

For a guy who admits to avoiding contemporary music for most of the past 30 years, you're very quick to dismiss it.

 

[landtuna]

For a guy who admits to avoiding contemporary music for most of the past 30 years, you're very quick to dismiss it.

How many songs do I need to listen to and dislike before I write off a decade's worth?

I had, several years ago, two teenage daughters who listened to the current hits. Every morning on KSAZ's morning show they break in several times with contemporary music (some Country, some CHR). Going to my doctor, dentist and multiple stores of every sort I hear current songs. In short, I am exposed to them whether I want to be or not. In my library I have exactly TWO songs of the past decade and none from the 90's (and again, we're talking about CHR because I do have some other genres from the past two decades). In all the exposure I have heard exactly TWO songs that I thought worth keeping. And Country is even worse.

So, even though I make no effort to listen to current CHR I still hear it. And I hear enough of it to know I would rather not hear any of it ever again.

OTOH, almost anything by Susan Boyle will bring tears to my eyes. THAT is the talent missing from CHR.

And yes, George Jones was one of my favorite Country talents as well - especially his duets.

 

[TheBigA]

60s now for people in their 40s is a mile wide and a foot deep. Most people in their 40s have some affinity for some 60s music, but not exclusively or even equally to the music they grew up with.

From the research I've done, I'd agree with that. We hear a lot of lip service paid to certain songs or artists, but no real familiarity. This also applies to country, like Jones or Cash. They like the image, the like the concept, but they don't actually KNOW the words or even the titles. They haven't heard the songs, or if they have, they don't remember them. In other words, the songs haven't touched them personally or emotionally in the way they touched the boomers. The story we hear is "My dad liked that song, I like my dad, so therefore I like that song." But it's not much more than that. By the way, a lot of younger boomers feel that way about Sinatra.

 

[michael hagerty]

For a guy who admits to avoiding contemporary music for most of the past 30 years, you're very quick to dismiss it.

How many songs do I need to listen to and dislike before I write off a decade's worth?

I had, several years ago, two teenage daughters who listened to the current hits. Every morning on KSAZ's morning show they break in several times with contemporary music (some Country, some CHR). Going to my doctor, dentist and multiple stores of every sort I hear current songs. In short, I am exposed to them whether I want to be or not. In my library I have exactly TWO songs of the past decade and none from the 90's (and again, we're talking about CHR because I do have some other genres from the past two decades). In all the exposure I have heard exactly TWO songs that I thought worth keeping. And Country is even worse.

So, even though I make no effort to listen to current CHR I still hear it. And I hear enough of it to know I would rather not hear any of it ever again.

OTOH, almost anything by Susan Boyle will bring tears to my eyes. THAT is the talent missing from CHR.

And yes, George Jones was one of my favorite Country talents as well - especially his duets.

All of which is fine and in fact natural for most people. But it gives you no insight as to what the generation that made the "crap" popular will think of it as they age.

 

[jabba17]

If you look at all genres of music today, I think that just as many artists were influenced by dance/club music of the 70s as were influenced by 60s/70s classic rock - and a lot of artists were influenced by 80s Pop, 90s Alternative, and 90s Hip-Hop - and I'm sure that in the upcoming years we'll hear about artists that were influenced by acts of the 2000s

Popular music today has a beat and that's about it. If you call that influence then I agree but then again, that can apply to any music age. The fact that music has pretty much hit the crapper is evidence that no such influence exists.

There's a lot more music out there than just CHR - sure, there's "dumb pop" music today, but there was also "dumb pop" music back in the 60s and 70s as well - 3 chords on a guitar with cliche lyrics isn't any more musically substantial IMO than 3 chords with a dance beat and cliche lyrics

Dumb pop in the 1960s even had its own name. Bubblegum.

 

[landtuna]

All of which is fine and in fact natural for most people. But it gives you no insight as to what the generation that made the "crap" popular will think of it as they age.

You accused me of dissing current CHR without hearing it. ("For a guy who admits to avoiding contemporary music for most of the past 30 years, you're very quick to dismiss it.")

This was my defense that I had indeed heard it. Perhaps not all of it but enough to know what it is.

As far as what the 'now' generation will think of their younger-age music (notice I did not call it "oldies" because it isn't) - I don't really know, or care. It doesn't bother me now that CHR is so crappy I don't listen. I just don't listen. Opera drives me crazy too so I don't listen to that either. I don't expect it to change (and it hasn't) but I don't care.

I have perhaps 20 years left on this planet. In that time I fully expect Oldies to still be here. Perhaps not in the quantity they once were but "Brown Eyed Girl" and The Beach Boys will still get whatever form of airplay exists then. The CHR of today might find an audience but I doubt it will be significant.

Ring me up in 20 years and if I can remember who you are you can take me to dinner. ;D

 

[PirateJohnny]

I can listen to all the oldies I want, any time I want. My personal collection is bigger than most radio stations and it plugs into this little hole in my car stereo. Radio stations are in business to make money, and if "oldies" aren't generating revenue, you won't find them. But the days are long gone when radio was the only option for music.

Me too! Close to 7000 Top 100 songs and I have even acquired the jingles from the station I grew up with and DJ'ed on, too.

So, even though I make no effort to listen to current CHR I still hear it. And I hear enough of it to know I would rather not hear any of it ever again.

So, you and current music are "never, ever, ever getting back together"?

 

[atlantaboy]

There's a lot more music out there than just CHR - sure, there's "dumb pop" music today, but there was also "dumb pop" music back in the 60s and 70s as well - 3 chords on a guitar with cliche lyrics isn't any more musically substantial IMO than 3 chords with a dance beat and cliche lyrics

We are talking about CHR (or what we called Top-40 back in the day). I agree there are other genres today that are very good that for the most part did not exist in the 50's.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare "Top 40" today to "Top 40" in the 60s-80s, since back then you had multiple genres all feeding into the Top 40 Chart, whereas today Hot AC, Alternative, and Rhythmic are separated from CHR

To make a fair comparison IMO, you'd have to combine the CHR, Hot AC, Alternative, and Rhythmic charts all together