radio..ice cold

[TheBigA]

Because of other ways of getting information and entertainment, local radio has become passe.

People want what they want when they want it where they want it, and they want it for free. If radio can accomplish that, people will listen...for a while...then they do something else. There's no "appointment listening," just as there's no longer "appointment viewing." If you do something great on the radio, it helps to make it available as a podcast or a YouTube video, and then watch it go crazy.

 

[Tibbs4]

Well said, gentlemen. I think you both are saying the similar things. Listeners listen differently by age and music. What works on today's Top 40 station is just an updated version of what the 60s, 70s and 80s was morphing into. The youth of today wants the entertainment news on their stars and idols, updates on music, etc. vs. the more local (and generally older) DJ back in "the day." I can see that making sense. The Classic Rock/Oldies (if you will allow) stations probably need more of a friendly personality with a little humor, more local flair and tidbits of current news/concerts of the artists the station plays with some of the old fun facts about the music they grew up listening to on the AM or local FM stations. Country and AC fall somewhere in the middle.

Engaging the listener is dependent upon age and format. But, interestingly enough, lifeless radio gets no mention from you both as a positive thing, so that means you do need some good substance between the music. That's where radio can be relevant for years to come.

BigA, not to go unnoticed by you comment is the fact that with ALL the "competition" and various sources that are so easily accessible, radio still is pretty amazingly vibrant. It actually may be more vibrant given the competition vs. say 1975. It says something amazing, but obvious. Everyone still wants to feel and be connected, just on their terms to meet their needs.

 

[samliguori]

i like alot of what landtuna and the big A posted, but i dont think the d.j.s job was to connect with the artist per say, unless you were doing an interview, which i always thought was boring. all they did was promote their music.$$$ .. the d.j.s job was to connect with the listener .. what people of all ages want to hear is the MUSIC..and yes back in the early days of radio the d.j. was important.hundreds would come to see their favorite personality do a live broadcast. and yes, they were curious of how the person they heard on the radio looked. i always got the ..you look so small, i thought you were a big guy by the way you sounded. but im enjoying all the posts for the topic..keep em coming...sam..

 

[TheBigA]

hundreds would come to see their favorite personality do a live broadcast. and yes, they were curious of how the person they heard on the radio looked. i always got the ..you look so small, i thought you were a big guy by the way you sounded.

These days, all the mystery is gone. You can see what the DJ looks like on the web site. Most DJs don't want to physically meet the listeners now for fear they might get an "Alan Berg" type stalker.

 

[landtuna]

These days, all the mystery is gone. You can see what the DJ looks like on the web site. Most DJs don't want to physically meet the listeners now for fear they might get an "Alan Berg" type stalker.

Except on the "little tiny towns" AM's there was never any mystery. In the 50's my local T-40 station used to produce weekly flyers with the Hooper ratings for songs. On the front of the flyer (several years of which I still have) were all the DJ's pictures (in suits and ties no less) and if that didn't work all you had to do was attend any one of a number of public appearances held throwout the town each week to see one in person. One of them lived 1/2 mile from me and would welcome you into his house if you dropped by.

It must have been a much nicer world back then although I really doubt today's music DJ would be at the same risk as was Alan Berg (who baited then redressed his callers and was exceedingly confrontational).

 

[TheBigA]

It must have been a much nicer world back then although I really doubt today's music DJ would be at the same risk as was Alan Berg (who baited then redressed his callers and was exceedingly confrontational).

You'd be surprised. "Won't play my request? I'll show you!" There are a lot more crazy people with guns today than there were 30 years ago.

 

[landtuna]

You'd be surprised. "Won't play my request? I'll show you!" There are a lot more crazy people with guns today than there were 30 years ago.

I don't doubt that. I can remember my father railing one night when he had called the local T-40 station to request a favorite song for my sister. When it didn't air within several minutes he came into my room, where I was listing to that same station, and had all sorts of unpleasant things to say. He probably didn't realize that almost half the listening audience of the entire town was tuned to KTKT at that time and their request list would have been hours long.

 

[davideduardo]

[In the 50's my local T-40 station used to produce weekly flyers with the Hooper ratings for songs.

Hooper did not rate songs.

C.E. Hooper rated radio stations based on audience size.

When a station said "Hooperated #1" it meant that the station was the most popular, not that the songs were scored by Hooper.

Here is a sample Hooperating from 1961

 

[davideduardo]

The only thing I notice in my market are the "current junk" music stations (what DO you call today's terrible music anyway?) with their wild-haired, pierced and tatted 'role models

Can "get off my lawn" be far behind?

 

[davideduardo]

One of the reasons the Boomer generation is still so tightly wedded to the music of their youth is that it was not disposable. Most of it meant something at the time and we still understand those feelings (you don't necessarily lose them as you age). Today's crap (and I am being very generous with that description) is definitely disposable and I expect the only time you will hear any of today's "music" 20 years from now is at the occasional high school reunion when the alums make fun of the songs of their youth. You don't find Boomers (or in my case, pre-Boomers) doing that. They will also, in all probability, not be reminiscing over the likes of the personalities they identified with so strongly as kids because, like the music of today so is the talent largely disposable.

One of the best pieces of writing about today's great... and fun!... music is this:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/10/13/pitbull-staples/

It addresses the generational issue, debunks the boomer "mine is better" philosophy, and explains how today music is an active part of life, not just something you listened to on an old radio.

(Of course, I have a dozen or so Pit songs on my iPhone, so I'm biased)

 

[landtuna]

Hooper did not rate songs.

I didn't see your example but here is one of the handouts KTKT did in the late 50's and early 60's and it clearly states it is produced by C.E.Hooper & Pulse:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/landtuna/6-16-2_zpsf8334aef.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/landtuna/6-16-1_zpse9f154d7.jpg

 

[landtuna]

One of the best pieces of writing about today's great... and fun!... music is this:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/10/13/pitbull-staples/

It addresses the generational issue, debunks the boomer "mine is better" philosophy, and explains how today music is an active part of life, not just something you listened to on an old radio.

(Of course, I have a dozen or so Pit songs on my iPhone, so I'm biased)

And I would suggest your bias is coloring your outlook. "Our" music, contrary to the author of that ridiculous piece, was not at all "passive". From the mid-50's thru the mid-60's it was mostly dance and/or get together with your girl music. We had far more dances than teens have today - even several on regional and national TV. We had innovators that produced half a dozen new genres of music, unlike today where they all sound alike. Take away the videos and you have nothing but noise. It was not until Vietnam became a driving force to Folk Rock that the tone changed significantly but even then Disco came in to provide feel good and dance music.

The author does get several things right. Pitbull came from nothing. He should have added he isn't nothing and will return to nothing. Like generations passed modern pop music is in large part rebellion against everything youth finds out of touch with themselves. Unlike passed generations the mindless idiots of today are able to see and do things which they think elevates them into the national conscious. Success is measured not in real terms but rather by the number of YouTube hits and all it takes is an idiot with an iPhone to make that tabulation. Music is now so worthless the artists (if you can still use that term) are giving it away. The only original thing about most of these people are their hair styles.

Modern pop seems to fairly represent the common teenager of today. Semi-educated, self-absorbed morons who can't put a simple English sentence together correctly and do so without spell check. Granted, we don't hear about the minority of highly successful ones, just those that are loud, obnoxious and support the money changers operating the current music industry. And I say this fully admitting the "good old days" were not as good as most people think but they were a damned sight better than today's entertainment, including the music that radio plays.

You and the author give Pitbull some space then tell me this - you think in 50 years you will hear anything by Pitbull in a commercial or on music radio? I think not. In the disposable world of today those acts will disappear faster than last night's beer. Neither the music nor their performers will survive in anything but the old farts of their day holding high school reunions.

Those people did accomplish one thing however, they killed pop music radio. And you old DJ's know this far better than I do.

 

[Tibbs4]

The good old days weren't all that good. They were what they were. I don't know how you can't call any number of songs from the 50s, 60s and 70s not "disposable".? "Honey"? "I was Kaiser Bill's Batman?" Didn't even Phil Spector call his music "little symphonies for the kiddies"? He had no inclination anyone would be playing it in five years, let alone 50. Yes I love a lot of older music, but with a somewhat selective filter. I can give you the perspective of someone who grew up in a smaller town. We listened to the great, legendary CKLW by day (pattern change and PJB eliminated them at night). Great as they were, my classmates in junior high would have been hard pressed to name the daytime jock lineup in the Drake and just post-Drake era. In addition, we weren't about to be allowed to call Detroit long distance (by the way, if you did call The Big 8, you didn't talk to the jock, you talked to one of the Hitline Girls). We had WOWO which had great personalities and was the default choice because of signal. Another Fort Wayne station signed on with top 40 in 1971, WMEE. We had a local top 40 for a couple of years, and I did have some of the experiences of seeing them broadcast from a tent at the county fair (bringing turntables, cart machines, the phone, etc.). I got to come by and watch one of the DJs at the studio. Too bad this format didn't last until I was old enough to drive, because I would have loved to work there. On the other hand, I had plenty of friends who were just as happy to listen to the automated TM Stereo Rock station. Folks were already starting to "engage" with other people by CB. Radio personalities (giving my market as an example) do still engage with audiences. The known personalities are everywhere, pumping gas for charity for one thing. My daughter was born in the 80s and does remember the music she liked in the 90s. I can definitely tell you my parents thought my music was disposable garbage.

Many of your complaints have nothing to do with radio, but the fact that your and my generation's experience wasn't frozen in time (if you had what you say you want, we'd be having this conversation in print). Radio can't operate as though it were 1967 and expect society to follow. I have co-workers who have titles don't even remember dial-up internet.

Can you name the Ft. Wayne DJs that you recall? As we all would get a bit older, I think we did remember the names, voices and personalities. Then, when we entered the real world (college, work, life...) we tuned in differently and it was "us" who changed and moved away from the stations.

A bit off this exact response, BigA notes that there is a good turnout for remotes and the jocks get lots of attention. That is true, and I contend that while times and music have changed, people still LOVE having a familiar voice communicating with them on the air. I am not loving the PPM world, but I do think that it has made "engaging" the listener much more focused, but perhaps less heartfelt.

 

[Tibbs4]

Landtuna & David - I admit I AM OLD and mostly proud of that at this point. The article was hard to read. It reads like a bunch of ADD sentences written for a PPM world. I guess that means I am past my DAMADDPPrime. One thing that I note, is the dress. Yes, it is indeed a fashion show these days. Marketing at its best! Imagine that. "Our generation" never really embellished the fact that how we dressed at a show was more important than showing up to hear (and be a part of) the music. Indeed, the show is NOT about the artist. it's about the ME SHOW. I guess the artist is NOT important. Kinda suPPMerficial to me. These listeners are getting exactly what they are asking for! Virtually nothing. It's not about anyone else. ME ME MY!

 

[davideduardo]

I didn't see your example but here is one of the handouts KTKT did in the late 50's and early 60's and it clearly states it is produced by C.E.Hooper & Pulse:

What we call "ratings" today were often called "surveys" in the 50's and 60's.

The statement would read, today, "Rated #1 by Nielsen".

"Survey certified #1 by Hooper and Pulse" means that KTKT was the top rated station in both surveys. The statement does not relate to the "song survey" but to ratings surveys.

Hooper did not measure music, record sales, radio airplay or anything similar.

Dr. Roslow's Pulse service surveyed radio ratings. The Pulse did not measure anything to do with music, either.

 

[davideduardo]

And I would suggest your bias is coloring your outlook. "

Modern pop seems to fairly represent the common teenager of today. Semi-educated, self-absorbed morons who can't put a simple English sentence together correctly and do so without spell check.

And I say this fully admitting the "good old days" were not as good as most people think but they were a damned sight better than today's entertainment, including the music that radio plays.

You and the author give Pitbull some space then tell me this - you think in 50 years you will hear anything by Pitbull in a commercial or on music radio?

Those people did accomplish one thing however, they killed pop music radio. And you old DJ's know this far better than I do.]

I played Bobby Vinton and Leslie Gore, The Ventures, The Fleetwoods and Brian Hyland when they were currents and recurrents. I'll take Beyoncé and Pitbull and Chris Brown and Iggy Azelea and David Guetta to any of those today.

I said I was biased because, unlike you, I've moved with the music. I liked Donna Summer in the 70's and the Pet Shop Boys in the 80's and Freestyle in the 90's and Emenem in the 90's. I still like some 50's and 60's stuff, but I don't obsess about it and I definitely don't think it is better than today's recordings.

Oh, and thinking back on most of the kids in my last High School class, they were equally ignorant, unfocused and self-centered as what you describe today. In fact, that definition fits every teen at some point in their development.

And I think that about as many of today's songs will be relevant in 50 years as the songs from 1964 that are relevant today... in other words, some, but a very few and then mostly among those who are old enough to remember them. If you disagree, look at the lists you put in your KTKT chart links... 90% is pure and absolute drek (and in 1961 I was in my third year in radio).

 

[Tibbs4]

David - honestly, this (above) may be your best post of the 6+ million. You have seriously done your job and stayed fresh and current. Bravo. I will admit to falling into my era, like I am "programmed" to be, if you know what I mean. But, still, no one on here can honestly disagree that the ultimate failure is to see all of radio through one lens. There was as much drek back in the great years of the past, as in the horrible years of today. haha. I admit to Not knowing that work. Thanks? I think. Am I gonna get a black eye? Brian Hylands not so bad in 2014!

 

[landtuna]

Hooper did not measure music, record sales, radio airplay or anything similar.

Your memory differs from mine. I distinctly remember the DJ's saying that those lists were developed from record shop sales in the market. Here is a statement from the KTKT Tribute Site: "The KTKT Top 40 Certified Sound Survey presented the top 40 songs as ranked by record sales in the Tucson area. " It does not say that Hooper and Pulse did the survey so we both might have a point here.

 

[landtuna]

I played Bobby Vinton and Leslie Gore, The Ventures, The Fleetwoods and Brian Hyland when they were currents and recurrents. I'll take Beyoncé and Pitbull and Chris Brown and Iggy Azelea and David Guetta to any of those today.

I cannot compare those specific artists because I don't listen to modern pop music but I will say that you used some of the more softer artists of the old days in which to compare. It is also safe to say we appear to have very different tastes in music in general and that's fine. No one is questioning your individual musical tastes but our opinions will apparently continue to differ.

I said I was biased because, unlike you, I've moved with the music. I liked Donna Summer in the 70's and the Pet Shop Boys in the 80's and Freestyle in the 90's and Emenem in the 90's. I still like some 50's and 60's stuff, but I don't obsess about it and I definitely don't think it is better than today's recordings.

I am not "obsessed" with the old stuff either but I much prefer it to anything heard on music radio today. If you ask anyone in my general age group they will almost always say the same thing of today's pop music "it all sounds the same". And it does. In the old days most groups had a distinctive sound (even the Doo Wop groups which tended to be very stylized). I have heard enough of today's pop to say that not only are they virtually interchangeable but the main emphasis on their performances is visual, not musical. That is the major difference between now and then.

Oh, and thinking back on most of the kids in my last High School class, they were equally ignorant, unfocused and self-centered as what you describe today. In fact, that definition fits every teen at some point in their development.

As a 30-year veteran of the hiring and management wars in a variety of Fortune 100 corporations from the late 60's through 2001 I can state that candidates for jobs in this category have never been more unqualified in the basic business skill sets. They cannot spell. They cannot compose literate arguments. They dress like clowns and act like idiots not understanding one important thing about life in the corporate world. They think their "idols" in Hollywood represent everything important. Their work ethic is almost completely missing. As a group they are deplorable.

And I think that about as many of today's songs will be relevant in 50 years as the songs from 1964 that are relevant today... in other words, some, but a very few and then mostly among those who are old enough to remember them. If you disagree, look at the lists you put in your KTKT chart links... 90% is pure and absolute drek (and in 1961 I was in my third year in radio).

Well, neither of us is likely to live long enough to find out, are we? Personally, and I have stated this several times over the years, I thought the very early 60's was pure pap. After the payola scandals of the late 50's we got a plethora of semi-talented groups that virtually overlaid the innocent victims of the scandal and had several years of pure garbage - particularly the various girl groups. Once payola was forgotten and the British Invasion began the music improved and had a great run through the early 80's. Then we got grunge rock and hair bands and other forms of visual "entertainment" that swept the musical innovators from the scene once again. And this is where we are today.

There has never been so accurate an observation than "video killed the radio star".

 

[TheBigA]

There has never been so accurate an observation than "video killed the radio star".

Maybe...a lot of things "killed the radio star," including the radio stars themselves.

What killed the video? Certainly MTV is not what it was 20 years ago.