Per R & R

[garnet]

wow...it seems amazing to me, the talk on this board...i can't believe someone would be critical of an "80's" based station for skipping songs they want to hear...and you name "a-ha"?...have you ever listened to the stations in our market?...all they play is "a-ha"...you named some of the most burnt out 80's bands there are...i don't think some of the posters really listen to the stations, and instead generalize what you believe these stations to be...also, and i'm in this situation...about dj's picking their own music?...i hate anything slow...sure you want me picking your music?...picking music is not my job...and when i see situations(that i am put in, by the way), where i, or other dj's are forced to pick music(because everybody is doing "play what you want" weekends, and whatever), i think...ok, the company is paying $500,000 a year testing music, and it boils down to me picking songs?...how stupid is that?

 

[Radio_Realist]

"I'll leave you with a few more points of my own:"

And I'll only address a few.

2. The Elvis/Beatles/Boston/Quiet Riot analogy (and I could have thrown alternative rock in there too) was to illustrate the fallacy that one kind of music can cover so many years and maintain listener cohesion. It can't, and it doesn't.

But it doesn't illustrate that point. There are "kinds" of music that are faddish trends that come and go, and there are kinds that have bona-fide staying power.

"3. There's a MAJOR difference between MOR (Ray Price, Perry Como) and pop/bubblegum (let's say, for argument's sake, the Monkees and the Archies). Even KQV knew that back in 1969."

I always considered MOR as "pop" (as in "popular") and bubblegum as bubblegum. I figured Perry como was Pop and the Archies were bubblegum.

"8. If you truly believe year of release doesn't matter, try playing something from the 50's on WDVE, or current Top 40 hits on WJAS."

It would depend on which specific song from the 50's you were talking about, though I can't think of any that I'm familiar with that would be appropriate on WDVE. As for a current song, though I agree that songs from the current Top 40 wouldn't fly on WJAS, I think anything from any of Tony Bennett's new recordings, or anything from Rod Stewart's collections of covers of old standards would. And if you want proof that a recording from the current decade would be appropriate on WJAS, I have only two words for you: Michael Buble.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I always considered MOR as "pop" (as in "popular") and bubblegum as bubblegum. I figured Perry como was Pop and the Archies were bubblegum.

They're both pop--different styles, but still pop. Moms liked both of them--one for the seriousness of "And I Love You So"; the other for the sheer (innocent) enjoyment of "1-2-3 Red Light".

You want alot of stuff played together that fits well. Bob is doing just that, and making a killing with it (one of the reason for 3WS's decline). Yet, you don't like Bob.

So what do you like, other than your own radio station narrowcasting to you?

 

[kenhawk1160]

And if you want proof that a recording from the current decade would be appropriate on WJAS, I have only two words for you: Michael Buble.

My thinking exactly...plus Harry Connick Jr. and the new old that Cyndie Lauper now covers.

 

[corporateradiosucks]

wow...it seems amazing to me, the talk on this board...i can't believe someone would be critical of an "80's" based station for skipping songs they want to hear...and you name "a-ha"?...have you ever listened to the stations in our market?...all they play is "a-ha"...you named some of the most burnt out 80's bands there are...i don't think some of the posters really listen to the stations, and instead generalize what you believe these stations to be...also, and i'm in this situation...about dj's picking their own music?...i hate anything slow...sure you want me picking your music?...picking music is not my job...and when i see situations(that i am put in, by the way), where i, or other dj's are forced to pick music(because everybody is doing "play what you want" weekends, and whatever), i think...ok, the company is paying $500,000 a year testing music, and it boils down to me picking songs?...how stupid is that?

I assume you're referring to me...believe me, if I never heard a-ha again it would be too soon, they just happened to be the first example of an 80's synth-pop band that came to my mind as far as the theoretically resurrected WXXP expanding the kind of things it plays a little bit. I could have just as easily said Haircut One Hundred. Don't take things so literally.

Believe me, I TRY to listen to WXXP, but I've learned that they aren't going to show me anything new - even if people are supposedly calling in for "whatever they want."

I can't believe I'm reading a supposed DJ COMPLAIN about the prospect of picking his music. You hate anything slow? Cool. I won't listen to your show when I'm going to sleep. I will listen to it when I want to party and such. That's what used to give DJs personality. What station are you on, if any? (And before you ask, no, I'm not a radio professional, just an observer.)

 

[Radio_Realist]

"You want alot of stuff played together that fits well. Bob is doing just that"

I didn't know that WRRK had changed Bob's format to playing stuff that fits together well. When I first checked them out after they started doing Bob, their song selection sounded like train wrecks. When I heard them follow a really great classic rock song with Rufus' "Tell Me Something Good", I unset my radio button that had been on 96.9, and used it for WYEP. If they've stopped the train wreck segues, maybe I would like them now. But, I'm not sufficiently motivated to want to sample the station myself to see if that happened or not.

"So what do you like,"

Quinn in the Morning until 9:00 AM, the 'DVE Morning show after that. I'll usually stick with 'DVE, especially for the Electric Lunch, since I get to hear really great music I haven't heard in a long time. Today they played Leon Russell's cover of George Harrison's "Beware of Darkness". That was the best thing I've heard all day.

Sometimes, one of the other guys at the office will want to hear 3WS, so I hear that as well. The thing is, even the guy who likes 3WS starts complaining about "Not that song again!", and then he changes to 'DVE.

On the ride home, I'll usually listen to Fresh Aire.

On the weekends, I'll listen to NPR on Saturday mornings, and either 'DVE or Word FM the rest of the day. If I have the radio on in the evening (which is rare), it's Prairie Home Companion.

BTW, a way occurred on how to convince me that people don't want to hear other cuts from the albums that their favorite hit songs were on. Just demonstrate that over the past three decades, the sales of single recordings was significantly greater than the sales of albums and multi-cut CD's. If singles out sell albums (as they used to back in the ealry 60's), then that proves that people only want to hear the hits. If albums outsell singles, then that should prove the opposite.

 

[frothingslosh]

Geoff Mayfield, Billboard's director of charts, says the year is a disappointment for the music business but adds, "What we're seeing here and in other recent decline years is an industry transition." He calls the digital-download sphere "a different business. It tends to lend itself to buying individual songs rather than albums. There was a pent-up demand on the consumer's part to be able to buy individual songs that wasn't being catered to." (USA Today, 4 Jan 2006)

As album sales continue to decline -- they dropped seven percent last year -- the market for digital singles is showing explosive growth: Music fans bought more than 350 million songs online in 2005, a 150 percent jump from 2004, according to Nielsen SoundScan. (Rolling Stone, 19 Jan 2006)

Sales of CDs have plummeted for the fourth straight year, down by 12 million units in the first half of 2006 compared to the same period a year ago. ... Just about the only bright spot in this summer of discontent is a record titled Now That's What I Call Music! 22. Now 22 has sold more copies in its first week than any record in months, has topped 550,000 units sold, and has held the No. 1 spot on the Billboard charts for two straight weeks—the closest thing we've seen to a legitimate hit album all summer. Of course, strictly speaking, Now 22 isn't an album at all. Like the 21 previous Now CDs, it's a collection of big radio hits from recent months, slapped together and hustled into stores. (Slate.com, 28 July 2006)

The vast majority of radio listeners apparently want to hear the songs they like, and only the songs they like, and not "other cuts."

Now, Mr. Realist, I shall sit back and enjoy as you argue the exact opposite of that which you just argued. Fire when ready!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

If singles out sell albums (as they used to back in the ealry 60's), then that proves that people only want to hear the hits. If albums outsell singles, then that should prove the opposite.

An impossibility. Record companies stopped selling singles years ago, for the basic reason that they appear to have deduced (correctly) that people really are morons and will spend $18.00 for 13 songs they don't want or like for the chance to own one song they do want or like.

Cassette and CD singles were last (marginal and token) gasps to sell something (singles) that had already been relegated to the past by the late 80s.

But this isn't about deep cuts on albums, this is about broad audiences wanting something they can enjoy almost every time they turn on the radio. It cannot always be gut instinct or "I like this" anymore than it can always be research. The "fine balance" has succeeded a hell of alot less than it has failed.

But, we all know that the cure to this is prerecorded shows voicetracked, right? In which case, you're NEVER going to hear Leon Russell because unless you're in Pittsburgh, you'd never know that it would work. (Not to undercut my point here, but a great song like "Beware of Darkness," off George's All Things Must Pass album--one of the all-time greats--would always sound good.)

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Now, Mr. Realist, I shall sit back and enjoy as you argue the exact opposite of that which you just argued."

No argument, just a need for a clarification. Since you didn't include the entire articles or links to their sources, are they talking about mostly new recordings, or about all downloaded recordings, including older catalog recordings? In other words, is the trend mentioned in those snippets of articles across the board of all genres and vintages of music, or is it limited to what would be considered 2006's "Top 40"?

"But, we all know that the cure to this is prerecorded shows voicetracked, right?"

No, the cure for this is local shows produced by local people who know the local audience and who have an affinity for the local audience. And I also meant "shows", not just 24/7 programming. When a DJ does his (or her) show, it should be his (or her) show. The personalities on the air should be more than seat warmers holding down an airshift playing songs selected by a computer.

But, if the DJ's aren't allowed to pikc their music, or produce their shows, if they're nothing more than interchangeable inserts in a corporate machine, then you might as well voice-track them.

 

[frothingslosh]

"Now, Mr. Realist, I shall sit back and enjoy as you argue the exact opposite of that which you just argued."

No argument, just a need for a clarification. Since you didn't include the entire articles or links to their sources, are they talking about mostly new recordings, or about all downloaded recordings, including older catalog recordings? In other words, is the trend mentioned in those snippets of articles across the board of all genres and vintages of music, or is it limited to what would be considered 2006's "Top 40"?

Oh, heavens, I most certainly did include links. You're slipping. Tsk! Must I do all of your work for you?

 

[frothingslosh]

"Now, Mr. Realist, I shall sit back and enjoy as you argue the exact opposite of that which you just argued."

No argument, just a need for a clarification. Since you didn't include the entire articles or links to their sources, are they talking about mostly new recordings, or about all downloaded recordings, including older catalog recordings? In other words, is the trend mentioned in those snippets of articles across the board of all genres and vintages of music, or is it limited to what would be considered 2006's "Top 40"?

Since I want to be sporting, I'll save you a bit of trouble. The most downloaded American singles of 2005, according to that article in Rolling Stone, were by Gwen Stefani, Kanye West, Weezer, Kelly Clarkson, The Black Eyed Peas, The Killers, Fall Out Boy, The Black Eyed Peas, Lifehouse, and Green Day. (Here are the top UK singles, per Auntie.)

Sales of all singles --- new releases and older items in the catalogues --- are tracked, and many older songs are perennial favourites.

Overall, however, the great unwashed masses seem to prefer to purchase these same popular records that the commercial radio stations insist upon playing.

It's too bad that radio stations keep forcing people to listen to music that they want to hear. If only corporate-owned radio stations would allow announcers to programme their own music, perhaps they would create a demand for Ted Heath, or Horace Heidt and His Musical Knights ...

 

[Boss Radio]

"So what do you like,"

Quinn in the Morning until 9:00 AM,

This explains a lot.

 

[corporateradiosucks]

Overall, however, the great unwashed masses seem to prefer to purchase these same popular records that the commercial radio stations insist upon playing.

It's too bad that radio stations keep forcing people to listen to music that they want to hear.

But do people download them because they've developed a liking for them due to them being familiar cause the radio stations play them so much, and they otherwise wouldn't know of them? Or vice versa?

Chicken & egg.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Chicken & egg."

Ain't that the truth. Read anything by any recording company executive and they'll tell you that the songs that sell are the songs that get played on the radio. Ask any radio executive and they'll tell you that they only play the songs that sell.

If radio airplay wasn't the make or break factor in creating a hit record, why would the subject of payola even be an issue?

I mentioned the book "The Hitmen". It goes into great detail on the lengths record company people would go to in order to get their songs turned into hits by getting them played on the radio. At no point did what the masses want to hear play a part in the process. The demand for "hit" songs was created by radio airplay.

 

[frothingslosh]

"Chicken & egg."
I mentioned the book "The Hitmen". It goes into great detail on the lengths record company people would go to in order to get their songs turned into hits by getting them played on the radio. At no point did what the masses want to hear play a part in the process. The demand for "hit" songs was created by radio airplay.

Bollocks. You're talking about a book that came out in 1991 about events in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

If people didn't at least enjoy the songs, then they wouldn't keep listening. Payola or song-plugging might get a song onto the air. But it can't entice a listener to keep tuning in unless they enjoy the songs.

And surely people wouldn't pay to download the songs if they didn't like them.

There are many, many good artists who aren't getting regular airplay. I rather like Randy Newman, for instance, and Randy Newman has had very few "hit" singles. Despite his commercial success with movie soundtracks, he doesn't write conventional pop songs, so he doesn't have mainstream success.

Your arguments, time and again, consist of two points: 1.) Radio stations play garbage, and they play garbage because they are paid to do so, and 2.) if only announcers would and could pick off-beat music, radio would be much more interesting.

Point (1.) is rubbish. Point (2.) is taken. It certainly would be more interesting to those of us who enjoy the colourful and off-beat. However, it would likely be commercially unsuccessful.

 

[Radio_Realist]

All right. You've convinced me.

There are only 40 songs in the entire history of music that anyone likes, and everyone alive likes only those 40 songs, and they don't like any other songs. If you limit your radio station's playlist to just those 40 perfect songs that everyone in the entire world thinks are the greatest songs ever written, then you'll get every single listener within range of your transmitter to tune in to your station, and they'll listen 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Advertisers will shower you with contracts, and you'll live in a big house with a beautiful wife and an even more beautiful girl friend.

But, if you should ever play so much as one single song that isn't on that magic list of 40 perfect songs that everyone in the world agrees are the only 40 songs worth listening to, then everyone will tune to a different station and your ratings will instantly fall through the floor and you'll go broke and have to live all alone in a cardboard box under the bridge.

Likewise, your staff of "live and local" disc jockeys are the glue that holds your 40 song station together. Without them, no one would listen to those 40 perfect songs that everyone in the world agrees are the only 40 songs worth listening to. However, those DJ's are so incredibly stupid that you cannot trust them to decide what order in which to play those 40 perfect songs, so you have to hire an outside consultant to tell you the order in which to play those 40 perfect songs that everyone in the world agrees are the only songs worth hearing, because if your brain-dead disc jockeys were to play the #5 song before the #31 song instead of before the #21 song, then your listeners would all change the station and your ratings would go into the toilet and you're back in the cardboard box under the bridge.

I was wrong to think that in a city of over 1,000,000 people, there might be some differences in musical taste out there. How stupid of me to not realize that when experts like you describe the "mass audience", you know that every last man, woman, and child who lives within the range of your station's transmitter has exactly the same taste. And I should have realized that your knowledge that their preferences in songs never, ever changes no matter what mere external forces might influence their lives is far more expert than what my meager life experiences might have taught me.

And I was totally wrong to think that how people like or dislike songs is expressed in variable degrees, or that there might be songs that people like hearing often, and others that they like hearing every now and then. You've opened my eyes to the realization that all people either absolutely, positively love a song, or that totally and completely loathe it, and any suggestion on my part that there might be some level of middle ground between those two extremes obviously proves that I don't know music or people very well.

After all, anyone who pretends to be a pompous British twit must be an expert whose judgement is beyond questioning.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"if only announcers would and could pick off-beat music, radio would be much more interesting."

After finishing that last post, this comment started gnawing at me. Perhaps if you spent more time reading what other people wrote and less time polishing your British wanker schtick, you'd know what you were responding to. It's pretty easy to refute what someone else says when you change what they have said into something totally different.

I never said that stations should play large amounts of off-beat music, or even that they should play "off-beat" music at all. Never. Not once. When I posted specific examples of specific songs in this thread, I said this, "If your station's audience likes Traffic's "Feelin' Alright", odds are they'll also like "Crying to be Heard" from the same album. If they like "I Can't Quit Her" by Blood, Sweat, and Tears, odds are that they won't change the station if they hear "Without Her" or "Just One Smile" from the same album."

Where do you find "off-beat" in those specific songs I mentioned? Are you the least bit familiar with any of those songs? You do seem to be posing as someone who works in the radio business. Are you not familiar with those artists or those particular songs?

When I said "People who liked the Supremes would probably also like Martha Reeves and the Vandellas.", how was that advocating "off-beat" music?

What is so "off-beat" about every now and then, as a change of pace, playing a less-well known song from an album from which one or more high rotation hits songs came from?

"I rather like Randy Newman,"

Bully for you. What I've said isn't about artists like Randy Newman who have almost no hit records to their name. I've been talking about playing less-well known songs from artists who have had lots of hits. Bruce Springsteen has had dozens of hits. So would it destroy a station's ratings if in the course of an entire week they played one freakin' Bruce Springsteen song that wasn't a hit single even though it was a cut on a top 10 album?

 

[garnet]

wouldn't it be great if there were a radio station built for each and every one of us....like tivo recording things for me...it knows what i like...unfortunately, that has already happened...you just don't have the right technology...ask your kids...

 

[Boss Radio]

Why does every thread wind up with the same tired rant from Realist?

 

[kenhawk1160]

I've been talking about playing less-well known songs from artists who have had lots of hits. Bruce Springsteen has had dozens of hits. So would it destroy a station's ratings if in the course of an entire week they played one freakin' Bruce Springsteen song that wasn't a hit single even though it was a cut on a top 10 album?

I agree with you, Realist. We do a show every Friday on my station where we play a new CD in its entirety. It gives the listener the advantage to hearing the whole CD before they decide to buy it. More than that, it's something a little bit different...you're not just playing the so-called "hits". What I'd like to see is maybe on an AC station, you play one song an hour that's an album cut (provided it's not 7 friggin' minutes long, which would probably rule out anything Harry Chapin did), and treat it like a special feature of the hour. A liner right before it like "Today's Hits and Yesterday's Favorites...and those in between!" Then go to the song.

There's lots of good music out there right now if PD's are willing to take the time and find it. I'm going to use John Mayer's "Room for Squares" CD as an example. A few years ago, when that CD came out, me and a few of my radio friends were discussing it, and we mutually agreed that the record company pulled a couple tracks off that CD that they tried to sell as hits, but they were crap (in our considered opinion). There were lots more tracks on that CD that could have been hits, but they weren't about to put the muscle behind them to adequately promote them (Neon and 1983).

You can even take this a step further...if your station has a website, list all those particular songs on your website and make it a listener poll. Keep it or can it? See what kind of response you get. Depending on the input, maybe you can put it in the regular rotation. Who says Billboard is the sole decision maker of 'hits'?