landtuna said:Disco is not moveable. Modern Disco is called Dance or Rhythmic or whatever...
What would you call that "Jammin' Oldies" phase we went through about a dozen years ago? :-\
landtuna said:Disco is not moveable. Modern Disco is called Dance or Rhythmic or whatever...
oldies76 said:Very true, but growing up in the 70's and early 80's, would make those songs, our oldies.
oldies76 said:I guess teens listening to Gaga or Bruno Mars would call them oldies in 30 years.
DToTheJ said:landtuna said:Disco is not moveable. Modern Disco is called Dance or Rhythmic or whatever...
What would you call that "Jammin' Oldies" phase we went through about a dozen years ago? :-\
wibg1020 said:At WIBBAGE FM 94.3, we've maintained a strict '61 to 76 philosophy.
WIBBAGE listeners know the brand.. they expect it to have that era music
distinctive. In Philly, WIBBAGE was a monster because it launched some of
the best national groups, but surprizingly, many of the spins were the "B"
flips of the national hits. WIBBAGE FM must stay true to the era that it
was famous for. Sure it matures, with contemporary jocks, alot of retro
ear candy and jingles, because its WIBBAGE. There are stations around the
country who are migrating into disco and beyond. Frankly, we believe its
like mixing oil with water. Thats why Jack was such a disaster. The "anything
plays" philosophy simply doesn't work, and CBS-FM needs to keep that in mind.
The constant consultant drum beat of "play more new stuff" is an irrelevant as
the 22 year old media broker at agencies going simply "by the numbers".
When radio becomes that sanitized, it then loses its relevance with who is
most important: our listeners. We listen to what our callers say.. and WIBBAGE-FM
is here to stay.
landtuna said:Nope. Just as 'Standards' don't move to fit the calendar, neither do Oldies. The first generation of RnR/Pop will always be Oldies. Nothing else ever will.
satech said:A select few '90s songs can already easily fit into an Oldies format. For example, the 1991 Lenny Kravitz hit "It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over" sounds exactly like it came out of the '70s.
oldies76 said:What would you call them then? It's our "oldies", our classics. True golden oldies would be 1955-1963, but the timeline moves forward. We could just call them classic hits. It could go both ways, classics, oldies...almost one in the same. Think of it, 1980 was 31 years ago.
oldies76 said:I believe that "Golden Oldies" and "Oldies" may be two different terms here.
oldies76 said:In 1980, 1949 would be 31 years prior, but that music was hardly even played. And today we are hearing music over 50-55 years old on the radio.
oldies76 said:Standards was not just pre-1955, what about more recent easy standards, like Dionne Warwick, Johnny Mathis or Englebert. They are in the "oldies" category.
landtuna said:oldies76 said:Very true, but growing up in the 70's and early 80's, would make those songs, our oldies.
Nope. Just as 'Standards' don't move to fit the calendar, neither do Oldies. The first generation of RnR/Pop will always be Oldies. Nothing else ever will.
oldies76 said:I guess teens listening to Gaga or Bruno Mars would call them oldies in 30 years.
No disrespect but I don't think in 30 years anyone will remember either of the "artists" you mention.
CTListener said:We still remember the Kingsmen, Question Mark and the Mysterians, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Village People and Blue Swede, don't we? Gaga and Mars, while their musical styles may not be to your (or my) liking, have tons more talent than any of those hitmakers from 30+ years ago. Don't believe the hype: "Our" music didn't change the world, and 90 percent of it (conservatively speaking) was entertaining but utterly disposable.
oldies76 said:CTListener said:We still remember the Kingsmen, Question Mark and the Mysterians, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Village People and Blue Swede, don't we? Gaga and Mars, while their musical styles may not be to your (or my) liking, have tons more talent than any of those hitmakers from 30+ years ago. Don't believe the hype: "Our" music didn't change the world, and 90 percent of it (conservatively speaking) was entertaining but utterly disposable.
Sure, exactly why today's "talent" cannot even play an instrument. I assume you're joking here or I'm not catching something obvious. ???
I think your sarcasm is valid.ansky212 said:Remember this is NYC. We must have rhythmic music on every station [/sarcasm]
Mark Jeffries said:Are you proud to sound just like the critics in the press, in political circles and in the clergy who attacked rock and roll in the 50s and 60s--and bebop in the 40s--and swing in the 30s--and jazz in the 20s? Have you forgotten about radio stations smashing rock records on the air and towns trying to ban rock concerts? No one's asking you to like what's on the charts today (and God knows there's a lot I don't care for)--we're just asking you to consider this music as similar to what you were listening when you grew up (and another decade later, when I grew up--or so I'm guessing) and that part of the appeal was this--ADULTS DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT YOU DID.
CTListener said:We still remember the Kingsmen, Question Mark and the Mysterians, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Village People and Blue Swede, don't we?
CTListener said:Gaga and Mars, while their musical styles may not be to your (or my) liking, have tons more talent than any of those hitmakers from 30+ years ago.
CTListener said:Don't believe the hype: "Our" music didn't change the world, and 90 percent of it (conservatively speaking) was entertaining but utterly disposable.
landtuna said:It has neither the technical excellence of the past nor is it very creative. Some of it isn't even music and is actively detested by millions.
landtuna said:That is a statement that you can't possibly back up. You are trying to tell me that those two musical impersonators are more creative and talented than the Beatles, Moody Blues, Led Zeppelin, Chicago, Bob Dylan and a thousand more.