Radio is Dead (and not just AM)

[davideduardo]

Most of these singers and groups quit recording 35 or so years ago.

And 35 years ago, the Billboard chart was based on wholesale shipments. The bigger stars, who generally did have loads of big hits, created an expectation of sales by retailers, who stocked up. Many of those songs were not hits, and the stores returned the unsold records for credit.

In more recent times, the chart has included sales of all kinds as well as airplay, eliminating the "hype" of new songs.

Michael Hagerty wrote a marvelous explanation in the LA forum and it is at http://www.radiodiscussions.com/sho...October-2014&p=6010696&viewfull=1#post6010696

The charts from the era you refer to are subject to all manner of distortion.

 

[landtuna]

The charts from the era you refer to are subject to all manner of distortion.

Yes, I've been told that many times but the fact remains that the outstanding performers and groups of the era continue to stand out no matter how measured. 35-50 years from now nobody will want to broadcast Justin Ballbat or Grumpy McWheezer except perhaps at an embarrassing high school reunion. And they certainly won't be filling the airwaves as background music for all manner of commercials.

Now, moving on and somewhat back to the original topic, I stated that the poor quality of today's pop music (and that should include Country as well) is but one reason music radio is having a tough time. How one judges quality is of course individual but I have heard, and continue to hear, people of all generations complain about the junk being produced today. The last time I heard complaining like that was during the Disco period.

And take into account that the USA is more than twice its size as in the 50's and you have yet another reason why unit sales/spins are higher for the modern crap. Pop music back then drove the culture - something that can't be said today.

 

[Avid Listener]

The charts from the era you refer to are subject to all manner of distortion.

Not unlike ratings.

 

[TheBigA]

And take into account that the USA is more than twice its size as in the 50's and you have yet another reason why unit sales/spins are higher for the modern crap. Pop music back then drove the culture - something that can't be said today.

Very similar things were said about the baby boomers in the 60s. The baby boom was a huge mass of kids created in the period following World War 2. More young people than at any time in our history. You think that explosion of people didn't distort the value of the things they liked? They were the Pepsi Generation! It had nothing to do with quality. It was all about the mass audience. You know what was the next largest group of kids since the baby boom? The current generation. Yes, so if their music is crap, and their impact is diminished by their size, then you should accept the fact that the same could be said about the baby boom.

 

[davideduardo]

Not unlike ratings.

What is your insane obsession that makes you believe that ratings are "fixed" as you posted elsewhere?

The people who have the biggest vested interest in the accuracy of ratings are not the stations but the advertisers and ad agencies who use the data to place a big portion of the nearly $18 billion invested in radio advertising in each of the recent years. Those people, decades ago, were instrumental in the formation of the Media Ratings Council to insure that ratings came as close as possible to perfection.

The MRC does annual methodology audits of every electronic measurement company seeking accreditation or desirous of keeping their accreditation. They also examine every change in methodology and audit the performance, market by market on metrics like sample size and proportionality as well as controls and supervision.

Beyond that, subscribers have all kinds of tools they can use to look at the placement and performance of meters by age group, geography, ethinicity, station use, etc. Those who go are in diary markets can look at every diary from every survey in their subscribed markets...

I did my first diary review in 1970 and have looked at millions of them since then, and that includes finding errors that resulted in the reissue of three full Arbitron books and one Arbitrend. That just demonstrates the transparency of the system and the fact that mistakes will be corrected if found (let me be clear that the issues I found in two of the cases involved a station trying to take credit for a generic term that was not specific to them).

Since the beginning of the ERMC (today the MRC) there has been no accusation of fraud or wrongdoing by Arbitron or Nielsen from anyone involved in the advertising or radio industries. The only such claims, always unfounded and undocumented, come from people with no experience dealing with ratings.

And since Arbitron started doing radio in 1965, companies like Hooper and Pulse have gone out of business, and ones like Mediastat, Meriatrend, Strata, Burke, Audits and Surveys, Birch, SRC and even a previous incarnation of Nielsen radio ratings have come and gone because advertisers trusted Arbitron.

Of course, "trust" does not mean that we would not like better controls or larger samples or other enhancements. But we believe in the system and work to improve it. We don't accuse good, honest and honorable people of dishonesty. You shouldn't either, particularly since you do not have shred of real evidence to back your insulting and demeaning claims.

For a while, I thought you were just a troll. But it is obvious that such is not true... you are more akin to a misanthrope.

 

[landtuna]

Very similar things were said about the baby boomers in the 60s. The baby boom was a huge mass of kids created in the period following World War 2. More young people than at any time in our history. You think that explosion of people didn't distort the value of the things they liked? They were the Pepsi Generation! It had nothing to do with quality. It was all about the mass audience. You know what was the next largest group of kids since the baby boom? The current generation. Yes, so if their music is crap, and their impact is diminished by their size, then you should accept the fact that the same could be said about the baby boom.

I proceeded the Boomer generation so I have no axe to grind with your statement personally, however, you will have to admit that from the period 1956-1984 there was more innovation, experimentation and diversity than at any time in pop music history.....including the present day crap which is built around gangsta's and poor videos.

BTW, "The Pepsi Generation" was a marketing program. Coca-Cola is and was then the most popular carbonated beverage.

 

[gr8oldies]

This sounds familiar. "This crap the kids listen to is all disposable pablum. Ain't nobody going to be listening to the Bubbles or whoever the hell those mop-tops are in 10 years. Soon as the kids graduate, they'll listen to good music like Sinatra and Welk!". A lot of station managers thought that way too

 

[K.M. Richards]

... you will have to admit that from the period 1956-1984 there was more innovation, experimentation and diversity than at any time in pop music history.....including the present day crap which is built around gangsta's and poor videos.

At last, I can agree with something you posted, landtuna. I can die happy now.

 

[JeffM]

Like I said before, musical "dad-ism." Not long ago (while looking for something else entirely!) I ran across a Billboard magazine interview from 1958-59 with a juke box operator in Utah, complaining about "those Mau Mau records the kids listen to," instead of Frankie Laine or Teresa Brewer. He observed in closing that the guy who really had "the kids" figured out was David Seville (the Chipmunks), "because nobody can understand a word he sings, so they play 'em over and over." (Which obviously was good for his business...)

 

[landtuna]

This sounds familiar. "This crap the kids listen to is all disposable pablum. Ain't nobody going to be listening to the Bubbles or whoever the hell those mop-tops are in 10 years. Soon as the kids graduate, they'll listen to good music like Sinatra and Welk!". A lot of station managers thought that way too

A familiar refrain but pretty inaccurate. It wasn't typical of my parents, nor most other parents of my friends. They may have preferred Sinatra or Como but they listened to Top-40. How do I know? Look at the ratings for KTKT in the late 50's and early 60's - that one station had over 50% of the total Tucson market and they had it for years. So a substantial number of adults must have been listening in addition to the teens of the day. The two largest industries in Tucson at that time were the University of Arizona and Davis-Monthan AFB - both guilty of importing thousands of people from all over the country so it was very much a melting pot of preferences. At the end of the decade the population exceeded 200,000 (up from 50,000 in 1950).

In the 60's I do remember some parents grumbling about the Beatles hair styles.....until the Rolling Stones made an appearance and then the Beatles looked positively formal.

 

[TheBigA]

In the 60's I do remember some parents grumbling about the Beatles hair styles.....until the Rolling Stones made an appearance and then the Beatles looked positively formal.

I remember grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and anyone else who was older grumbling about new music, no matter what it was. If it was new, it was bad. There are great documentaries about the 1920s and the way older folks viewed "flappers." Their approach was to call on the church and government to outlaw what they saw as lewd behavior. Old folks tend to view young people as inexperienced punks, and the popular culture they like as inferior. It's all just a fad. That's what they called the music of the 50s ad 60s at the time. Maybe not you, but that's the general experience.

 

[landtuna]

I remember grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and anyone else who was older grumbling about new music, no matter what it was. If it was new, it was bad. There are great documentaries about the 1920s and the way older folks viewed "flappers." Their approach was to call on the church and government to outlaw what they saw as lewd behavior. Old folks tend to view young people as inexperienced punks, and the popular culture they like as inferior. It's all just a fad. That's what they called the music of the 50s ad 60s at the time. Maybe not you, but that's the general experience.

The 20's were totally different than the 50's. Young people were suddenly wearing revealing clothing, smoking, drinking and listening to music which gave us dance moves like the Black Bottom and other forms of very risque motion. Although the boppers of the 50's were different it wasn't all that different from what our parents had danced to in the 40's and the jazz that proceeded 50's rock wasn't all that different either. A lot of the criticism came directly from white bigots who did not like what they called "race music".

I agree that criticism of youth has always been the prerogative of the elders but that doesn't always make it true.

 

[TheBigA]

Although the boppers of the 50's were different it wasn't all that different from what our parents had danced to in the 40's and the jazz that proceeded 50's rock wasn't all that different either. A lot of the criticism came directly from white bigots who did not like what they called "race music".

I'm told that Elvis wasn't universally accepted when he first came on the scene. And there was a clear distinction between Johnny Ray or Theresa Brewer and the music of the 40s.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm told that Elvis wasn't universally accepted when he first came on the scene.

I think you understated that just a little bit. You should have put that in BOLD, ALL-CAPS or something.

We are a much more homogenized nation today. I'm sure Elvis was received more rapidly, more fully embraced in a few markets but we were still a more rural-centric nation when Elvis hit the scene, and a lot of folks living in cities had not been there more than 10 or 15 years... and still had one foot in their rural home town. Much of the "church" in America was Fundamentalist, but they did didn't know it, didn't call themselves that, because they though EVERYBODY was, and even the more sophisticated pastors of main street churches in rural America were encouraging their flocks to stand clean of this new "devils music" until we get things sorted out.

[ There could be a whole new thread reserved just for people who attended college in little church sponsored institutions in the 1950s in the south where the 'boy preachers' gathered to be taught what life was all about. My favorite memory is the assertive young man who demanded the floor at the beginning of class one day and demanded to know: "Dr. Yeager, what are we going about all these naked women playing tennis in the middle of our campus?" And doc smugly responded, "Oh, I hadn't noticed." I guess the propriety of typical female tennis-ware is in the eye of the beholder. ]

The 20's were totally different than the 50's. Young people were suddenly wearing revealing clothing, smoking, drinking and listening to music which gave us dance moves like the Black Bottom and other forms of very risque motion. Although the boppers of the 50's were different it wasn't all that different from what our parents had danced to in the 40's and the jazz that proceeded 50's rock wasn't all that different either.

I wasn't here to observe the 20s, but I hit the radio scene about the same time Elvis arrived. I worked for broadcasters who had first hand knowledge of the 20s and 30s. (I worked for one station owner that never ceased to amaze me when he sat down in the studio to fill in for a couple of hours. Just as we have people today in radio and hanging around radio forums who get great thrills from reliving and recreating the live dj of the 50s and 60s, this guy was a scene to behold when he walked over to the giant record library and pulled out his favorites, and we lived in 1920s and 30s for a couple of hours.

So when you say (the 20s were totally different than the 50s you probably need to be more specific: The music? The dance moves? The daring 'break the rules' personal appearance (with of LOT of YOU appearing....)

People who grew up in NYC and Philadelphia will have a totally different view of this discussion than the folks who grew up in Stuttgart, AR and Great Bend, KS and Mauldin, MO.

So is the topic that keeps this thread percolating an issue of music tastes..... or are we discussing the community concepts of ethical and moral behavior and dress? or can they even be separated?

 

[landtuna]

I'm told that Elvis wasn't universally accepted when he first came on the scene. And there was a clear distinction between Johnny Ray or Theresa Brewer and the music of the 40s.

I think I observed a sarcastic tone in that post. But yes, Elvis was very controversial when he debuted to the common citizen. His physical antics were most of the issue but a lot of people didn't appreciate his covering of formerly "black" music and it wasn't until performers like Pat Boone, with his pearly white Christian personality, that it began to be accepted.

But it obviously wasn't Johnny Ray or Teresa Brewer that I was thinking of when I mentioned "my parent's music". Rather it was the Big Band and jazz sounds that gave us frantic dancing of the 20's, 30's and 40's. The boppers of the 50's were nothing more than a continuation of what had been taking place for the previous generation. Then, in the 60's it largely died and save for a brief infatuation with 70's Disco it has remained pretty much dead.

 

[landtuna]

People who grew up in NYC and Philadelphia will have a totally different view of this discussion than the folks who grew up in Stuttgart, AR and Great Bend, KS and Mauldin, MO.

So is the topic that keeps this thread percolating an issue of music tastes..... or are we discussing the community concepts of ethical and moral behavior and dress? or can they even be separated?

You are correct of course. People living in rural towns back then most probably had the same conservative views and practices that still pervade those same places today (with the exception that communications today makes everyone a bit more urban).

I was referring to the effect that music had on dress, behavior and general mores and perhaps the biggest was during the 20's. There were lots of other things: movies (unregulated at first), prohibition and the burgeoning speakeasies, motor vehicles (making it easy for youths to escape the watchful eyes of their elders), women's liberation (in legal terms, fashion, and public displays). Until the Great Depression put a kabosh on it the Roaring 20's were indeed roaring in so many ways. Music was both a cause and reflection of the nation's new found liberation.

 

[TheBigA]

But it obviously wasn't Johnny Ray or Teresa Brewer that I was thinking of when I mentioned "my parent's music". Rather it was the Big Band and jazz sounds that gave us frantic dancing of the 20's, 30's and 40's. The boppers of the 50's were nothing more than a continuation of what had been taking place for the previous generation.

Except that the dancing became even more graphic and physical, thus the bans on dancing in the religious areas. You remember the movie "Footloose." Musically, the arrangements became far more stripped back. The big bands gave way to quartets and trios, even in jazz, but everywhere else too. The acoustic instruments were replaced by electric, starting with Les Paul and others. In country music, things really changed in the 50s, as the mountain music of Roy Acuff was replaced by roadhouse music of Ernest Tubb. Tubb was banned from the Opry for a time, as were any groups that included drums. Then came Johnny Cash. Meanwhile Frank Sinatra considered the 50s his dead period. He couldn't get any airplay, and was dumped by Capitol Records early in the 50s. That's when he shifted into acting.

We've obviously drifted very far from the original post here.

 

[landtuna]

Except that the dancing became even more graphic and physical, thus the bans on dancing in the religious areas. You remember the movie "Footloose." Musically, the arrangements became far more stripped back. The big bands gave way to quartets and trios, even in jazz, but everywhere else too. The acoustic instruments were replaced by electric, starting with Les Paul and others. In country music, things really changed in the 50s, as the mountain music of Roy Acuff was replaced by roadhouse music of Ernest Tubb. Tubb was banned from the Opry for a time, as were any groups that included drums. Then came Johnny Cash. Meanwhile Frank Sinatra considered the 50s his dead period. He couldn't get any airplay, and was dumped by Capitol Records early in the 50s. That's when he shifted into acting.

We've obviously drifted very far from the original post here.

I have no idea what you meant by that post other than Sinatra died (musically) because his teenaged fans of the 40's grew up and 50's teens didn't like him as a singer. I have always maintained he was the most overrated male singer of all time (although he was a decent actor). I wouldn't have given a nickle to live next door however.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is not many singers from the 40s made the transition to the 50s. Nat King Cole, Perry Como, Peggy Lee, and Diana Shore. That's about it. The later you go in the 50s, the more revolutionary the music became, compared to the 40s. The 40s had more in common with the 30s than the 50s.

 

[landtuna]

My point is not many singers from the 40s made the transition to the 50s. Nat King Cole, Perry Como, Peggy Lee, and Diana Shore. That's about it. The later you go in the 50s, the more revolutionary the music became, compared to the 40s. The 40s had more in common with the 30s than the 50s.

Hmmmmm, I'm pretty sure I was talking about the MUSIC and not necessarily just the SINGERS.