• 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

Question: What Years Constitute "Oldies"?

Re: then/now

> We understand what some people liked BACK THEN. All we care
> about today is what THEY care about TODAY. Has it ever
> occoured to you that people today don't think exactly the
> way they thought in 1960? They do not- people's tastes,
> desires and expectations change. It's part of human nature.
>
>
> If you think EXACTLY the same way you thought when you were
> 15, I feel badly for you.

Yeah, but if you had a good young life back then, it is ok to look back and remember the times once in a while. Of course, they act differently now days, but it is also nice to remember the good old days.

> > Depends on what audience you're programming to. If your
> > wife is 55+, ask HER which version she likes best.
> > Remember, teen females bought 50% of the records back in
> the
> > '50s.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin

</P>
 
then/now

But you and I both know it's the biggest, most memorable hits of the time that accomplish 95% of that rush (not the local hit that peaked at #18 that you haven't heard in 40 years).


> Yeah, but if you had a good young life back then, it is ok
> to look back and remember the times once in a while. Of
> course, they act differently now days, but it is also nice
> to remember the good old days.
>
> > > Depends on what audience you're programming to. If your
>
> > > wife is 55+, ask HER which version she likes best.
> > > Remember, teen females bought 50% of the records back in
>
> > the
> > > '50s.
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: "The Mighty 1190"

I drove up to Hill County and recorded three hours of airchecks of 1190 last month (during daylight hours). If anyone is interested, email me for a trade.

> > How can you get 1190? I could not even get them at night
> in
> > Hill County. That is less than fifty miles south of their
>
> > transmitter.
>
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: paper adds

"I play by the heart, not by the charts."

Jerry Blavatt, The Geater With The Heater


> > Sorry, man- Bobby The D is absolutely 100% correct on this
>
> > one.
> >
> > CHARTS CHARTS CHARTS- listeners don't care, period. The
> > Little Richard version is THE hit version, ain't no doubt
> > about it.
>
> Yes, you can't go by charts.
>
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: then/now

> [You're stuck on the merits of a handful of Pat Boone-like
> originals and making a mountain out of what amounts to no
> more than an ant hill. And my response AGAIN to your
> question IS:
>
> > We understand what some people liked BACK THEN. All we
> > care about today is what THEY care about TODAY. Has it
> ever
> > occoured to you that people today don't think exactly the
> > way they thought in 1960? They do not- people's tastes,
> > desires and expectations change. It's part of humaN
> nature.]


Again I ask: who are "we"?? And what are "Pat Boone-like originals"?? I remember him as a cover artist. If you're programming to an audience that includes 55+ females then you'd better include Pat Boone. Most of his covers charted higher than the originals because teen females LOVED Pat Boone.
 
then/now

"We" are those who've been involved in Programming Oldies stations and understand the expectations of Oldies radio listeners.

Pat Boone's hits were in the late '50s- that means you're well over 60 to have much memory of his songs when they were current(for example, if you were 15 in 1958 you were born in 1943 and are now 62 and WELL out of the radar of today's successful Oldies stations).

Pat's covers were faint immitations of the Little Richard-type REAL rock n' roll hits by R&B artists- BACK THEN he was popular but the songs he covered are not the versions that have held up through time nor are they considered the legitimate "hit" versions. Kudos to Pat Boone for a phenomenal career but in the big-picture landscape of rock & roll, he was milk-toast vs. a Chuck Berry or Little Richard. THEY embodied rock & roll while Pat Boone was a white-bread alternative to keep kids away from that "race music" their parents thought rock & roll was at the time.


> Again I ask: who are "we"?? And what are "Pat Boone-like
> originals"?? I remember him as a cover artist. If you're
> programming to an audience that includes 55+ females then
> you'd better include Pat Boone. Most of his covers charted
> higher than the originals because teen females LOVED Pat
> Boone.
>
 
Re: then/now

> But you and I both know it's the biggest, most memorable
> hits of the time that accomplish 95% of that rush (not the
> local hit that peaked at #18 that you haven't heard in 40
> years).

True. I guess, specialty shows or something like that, it would be ok to play a local, once in a while.

> > Yeah, but if you had a good young life back then, it is ok
>
> > to look back and remember the times once in a while. Of
> > course, they act differently now days, but it is also nice
>
> > to remember the good old days.
> >
> > > > Depends on what audience you're programming to. If
> your
> >
> > > > wife is 55+, ask HER which version she likes best.
> > > > Remember, teen females bought 50% of the records back
> in
> >
> > > the
> > > > '50s.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin

</P>
 
Re: then/now

>
> I don't know who "we" is. But if you follow this thread
> backwards you'll see that it started with a discussion about
> stations like Chicago's WRLL who program to an audience that
> remembers Top 40 radio in the '50s & '60s, NOT an audience
> that was cultivated by so-called "oldies" programmers.
>


So where have these people been living for the past 45 years? Do you mean to tell me that anyone other than a hardcore aircheck collector "remembers" how Top 40 radio sounded in the 50s & 60s? Do they remember how cluttered the presentation was with "chime time", music sweeps sometimes as long as 2 songs in a row and yappy deejays who felt they had to do character voices whether they were even remotely convincing or not? Do they remember how many outright stiffs most stations played back then? How many teenagers sat thru a Dean Martin song because they might hear Dion next?
 
Re: then/now

No need to explain Pat Boone to me. I understand him perfectly............I was there. There are stations that DO program to 62+, Chicago's WRLL being one of them. And these stations are smart (and flexable) enough to play both the original AND the cover versions. Whether these stations are "successful" or not, I'll let the industry decide. But those of you who are involved in Oldies programming and "understand the expectations of Oldies radio listeners" can't be doing a very good job. You've just lost Oldies stations in two of the country's three largest markets!



["We" are those who've been involved in Programming Oldies
> stations and understand the expectations of Oldies radio
> listeners.
>
> Pat Boone's hits were in the late '50s- that means you're
> well over 60 to have much memory of his songs when they were
> current(for example, if you were 15 in 1958 you were born in
> 1943 and are now 62 and WELL out of the radar of today's
> successful Oldies stations).
>
> Pat's covers were faint immitations of the Little
> Richard-type REAL rock n' roll hits by R&B artists- BACK
> THEN he was popular but the songs he covered are not the
> versions that have held up through time nor are they
> considered the legitimate "hit" versions. Kudos to Pat
> Boone for a phenomenal career but in the big-picture
> landscape of rock & roll, he was milk-toast vs. a Chuck
> Berry or Little Richard. THEY embodied rock & roll while
> Pat Boone was a white-bread alternative to keep kids away
> from that "race music" their parents thought rock & roll was
> at the time.]
 
then/now

I think you're smarter than to suggest Oldies stations are dropping left and right because they're not playinb Pat Boone-type songs anymore (aren't you?).
Pat Boone was NEVER really part of any successful, competitive Oldies station's music mix, anyway (and I'm not talking the occasional AM or small market FM station- this is a big-picture statement).

It nice & cute and maybe noble to hold up a WRLL as a current example of Oldies programming success- except for that fact they're #31 in Chicago and have actually gone DOWN since WJMK was nuked.

Finally, please be careful also to avoid putting the recent fall of some Oldies stations solely on Programmers' shoulders. Most of that blame should be directed at the up-the-food-chain thinking that's looking more for Wall Street reaction than truly making long-term investments in radio stations they often way overpaid for.


> No need to explain Pat Boone to me. I understand him
> perfectly............I was there. There are stations that
> DO program to 62+, Chicago's WRLL being one of them. And
> these stations are smart (and flexable) enough to play both
> the original AND the cover versions. Whether these stations
> are "successful" or not, I'll let the industry decide. But
> those of you who are involved in Oldies programming and
> "understand the expectations of Oldies radio listeners"
> can't be doing a very good job. You've just lost Oldies
> stations in two of the country's three largest markets!
 
Re: then/now

> [It nice & cute and maybe noble to hold up a WRLL as a
> current example of Oldies programming success- except for
> that fact they're #31 in Chicago and have actually gone DOWN
> since WJMK was nuked.]


But they're still eating..............and paying the mortgage. I doesn't take a whole lot of people to run a "Jack" station.
 
Re: then/now

The definitely are- but is this about Oldies or sour grapes there are no
jocks on the JACK stations yet?

Look, you won't get disagreement from most of us that over 60 folks don't have value to advertisers. But as in WRLL's case, there aren't enough of them using that radio station to make them a viable player in the #3 market. Do they sound good- sure. Great to listen to, yes. Will they ever make even the top 20 in listenership in Chicago- probably not, versions of 50s songs they play notwithstanding.

> But they're still eating..............and paying the
> mortgage. I doesn't take a whole lot of people to run a "Jack" station.
>
 
Re: then/now

> No need to explain Pat Boone to me. I understand him
> perfectly............I was there. There are stations that
> DO program to 62+, Chicago's WRLL being one of them. And
> these stations are smart (and flexable) enough to play both
> the original AND the cover versions. Whether these stations
> are "successful" or not, I'll let the industry decide. But
> those of you who are involved in Oldies programming and
> "understand the expectations of Oldies radio listeners"
> can't be doing a very good job. You've just lost Oldies
> stations in two of the country's three largest markets!

Thats not the issue. The audience is aging and the format isn't selling. I thought you would know that.



> ["We" are those who've been involved in Programming Oldies
> > stations and understand the expectations of Oldies radio
> > listeners.
> >
> > Pat Boone's hits were in the late '50s- that means you're
> > well over 60 to have much memory of his songs when they
> were
> > current(for example, if you were 15 in 1958 you were born
> in
> > 1943 and are now 62 and WELL out of the radar of today's
> > successful Oldies stations).
> >
> > Pat's covers were faint immitations of the Little
> > Richard-type REAL rock n' roll hits by R&B artists- BACK
> > THEN he was popular but the songs he covered are not the
> > versions that have held up through time nor are they
> > considered the legitimate "hit" versions. Kudos to Pat
> > Boone for a phenomenal career but in the big-picture
> > landscape of rock & roll, he was milk-toast vs. a Chuck
> > Berry or Little Richard. THEY embodied rock & roll while
> > Pat Boone was a white-bread alternative to keep kids away
>
> > from that "race music" their parents thought rock & roll
> was
> > at the time.]
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin

</P>
 
Re: then/now

> The definitely are- but is this about Oldies or sour grapes
> there are no
> jocks on the JACK stations yet?
>
> Look, you won't get disagreement from most of us that over
> 60 folks don't have value to advertisers. But as in WRLL's
> case, there aren't enough of them using that radio station
> to make them a viable player in the #3 market. Do they sound
> good- sure. Great to listen to, yes. Will they ever make
> even the top 20 in listenership in Chicago- probably not,
> versions of 50s songs they play notwithstanding.
>
> > But they're still eating..............and paying the
> > mortgage. I doesn't take a whole lot of people to run a
> "Jack" station.
> >
>
With WJMK gone, I think it would be smart to make WRLL a 50s-early 70s oldies station like WJMK used to be. Even with their crappy signal, they should be able to do better than what WRLL is currently doing. Honestly, it's hard for me to qualify WRLL as a true oldies station. Let me list a few "Oldies" acts that people are familiar with: Rolling Stones, CCR, Buckinghams, Hermans Hermits, Jefferson Airplane, Beatles, Four Tops, Stevie Wonder, etc. WRLL plays none of these artists, how can an oldies station not play The Beatles or Rolling Stones. Also, I would not consider Sinatra or Pat Boone "Oldies" acts, they fit under "Standards" or "Nostalgia." WRLL has no problem playing them though.
 
Re: then/now

> > [No need to explain Pat Boone to me. I understand him
> > perfectly............I was there. There are stations that
>
> > DO program to 62+, Chicago's WRLL being one of them. And
> > these stations are smart (and flexable) enough to play
> both
> > the original AND the cover versions. Whether these
> stations
> > are "successful" or not, I'll let the industry decide.
> But
> > those of you who are involved in Oldies programming and
> > "understand the expectations of Oldies radio listeners"
> > can't be doing a very good job. You've just lost Oldies
> > stations in two of the country's three largest markets!]


>
> [Thats not the issue. The audience is aging and the format
> isn't selling. I thought you would know that.]

******************************************************************


This thread has gotten way too long. So I'll try to sum up my thoughts. It seems to me that every major market in the country should be able to support a radio station like Chicago's WRLL. Will they be ratings giants? Of course not. But as radio audiences continue to shrink, a smaller piece of the pie may be better than none at all. The 55+ population has increased to an all-time high. Any radio advertising sales department that says it can't sell advertising in this demo is either lazy, or needs to be re-trained.
 
"real" oldies

Great point about them really being an Oldies station. I've always had a problem with the "Real Oldies" moniker- your description of Oldies acts is more correct. WRLL is a good example of a station pitching itself as "real oldies",

HOWEVER- the entire problem is that listeners will not flock en masse to an AM station for their oldies. I'm not sure the music mix or era balance would matter much at all. One day digital AM will sound great but now long will that take and I believe people's patience will run out first, forcing them to rely on CDs or Satellite for their 50s, 60s or 70s music.
> >
> With WJMK gone, I think it would be smart to make WRLL a
> 50s-early 70s oldies station like WJMK used to be. Even
> with their crappy signal, they should be able to do better
> than what WRLL is currently doing. Honestly, it's hard for
> me to qualify WRLL as a true oldies station. Let me list a
> few "Oldies" acts that people are familiar with: Rolling
> Stones, CCR, Buckinghams, Hermans Hermits, Jefferson
> Airplane, Beatles, Four Tops, Stevie Wonder, etc. WRLL
> plays none of these artists, how can an oldies station not
> play The Beatles or Rolling Stones. Also, I would not
> consider Sinatra or Pat Boone "Oldies" acts, they fit under
> "Standards" or "Nostalgia." WRLL has no problem playing
> them though.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom