• 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

Rap music on CBS-FM??

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? :-\
 
OLDIES..WIBBAGE AND MORE

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.
 
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.
 
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? :-\

Someone trying to coin a unique name for marketing purposes.
 
Re: OLDIES..WIBBAGE AND MORE

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.

I would only ask why WIBBAGE forgoes the very roots of RnR (and Oldies, by definition)? Artists like Fats Domino, Rick Nelson, Elvis, Buddy Holly etc. had their start in the years immediately prior to '61 (which was a terrible year for pop music BTW - all those disgusting girl groups - UGH!). I speculate your listeners don't request those songs because they've not heard them. Mix it up a bit and see if you don't get some "feel good" RnR feedback from the roots of Oldies.
 
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.

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.

I believe that "Golden Oldies" and "Oldies" may be two different terms here.

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.

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.
 
Re: OLDIES..WIBBAGE AND MORE

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. And then there's the highly successful 1993 remix of The 4 Seasons' "December 1963, Oh What a Night", which some Oldies stations are already playing instead of the original 1975 version.
 
Re: OLDIES..WIBBAGE AND MORE

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.

Well, a bit modernized to say the least. Real 70's strings / brass and attempted replications 15 years later sound distinct. It's a good song otherwise.
 
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.

"Classic Hits" tells me the song(s) were the hits of their day, whatever time period that was. I realize most CH stations concentrate on the 60's and 70's and are moving into the 80's now. I think CH fits that definition.

oldies76 said:
I believe that "Golden Oldies" and "Oldies" may be two different terms here.

I don't make that distinction but if I had to I would say that GO are the cream of the Oldies (best selling songs). You could also make a good argument that GO are the earliest of the RnR/Pop era (Johnny & The Hurricanes, early Elvis, Eddie Cochrane, Fats etc.).

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.

I grew up in the 50's and can tell you that music from the 40's was still being played virtually all decade and into the early 60's. When RnR came into being in the mid-50's it did displace some of it but there were still plenty of "MOR" stations around.

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.

Yes, Standards are still being recorded (mostly by cover artists) but the genre began in the 40's. It hasn't been "moved" such is being done with Oldies.

Certain artists fit multiple genres. Mathis fits Easy Listening (MOR), Standards and Pop for instance in addition to Oldies. I would personally consider Warwick and Englebert in the Pop genre. I don't recall hearing either on any Oldies outlet in recent years.
 
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.

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.
 
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. ???
 
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. ???

Gaga's quite a good pianist and writes her own songs--I've heard her sing and play in an acoustic setting and she is a genuine talent who has chosen a different path than what you would like.

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.
 
ansky212 said:
Remember this is NYC. We must have rhythmic music on every station [/sarcasm]
I think your sarcasm is valid.

Remember "Emotional Rescue" by my cat and his friends?

Disco may have hit the brick wall with "Reunited", back in the day, but the dance beat continues to this day.

Disco Country? hmm...Featuring Aaron Tipporino and Lady Antebelum Gaga.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
 
CBS-FM has been very smart in the way it has moved the Classic Hits forward. I certainly would avoid rap at all costs though. The late 80s-early 90s weren't a great time for CHR music..they just need to be careful about incorporating too many tunes from that era.
 
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.

I'm not sure if you are answering me or CT, but there are many songs I do like from recent years, including this year. What I am referring to is the lack of "talent" when it comes to writing music or instrument playing. You hear the music of the 50's thru the 80's and compare it to today's music. A HUGE difference. Creating natural sounding music from instruments is so much more enjoyable to listen to, than computer generated sounds and styles. It's a personal choice and many that grew up in the "classic hits" era would mostly agree.

Listen to "Party Rock Anthem" and then listen to "Shake Your Booty" or the 7 minute version of "Beginnings" and note the huge differences.
 
WIBBAGE MUSIC HALL OF FAME

Clearly, Landtuna has not listened to WIBBAGE FM. Otherwise it would know
that our WIBBAGE Music Hall of Fame sequence once per hour plays the tunes he mentioned.
Obviously, it doesn't like "girl groups", but clearly it has no knowledge of the Top 30
playlists of WIBBAGE. Our trademark is our name. Our product has growing appeal
among the thousands of calls and e-mails we get each month, and interestingly
from demos specific to 25-45 male AND female. Frankly, if agencies were a legit
business, they'd change their tune. With the plethora of "Rock i.e.hard.soft.buss. duzz)
appealing to the 22 year old beer drinker who can't find work and can't afford many of the
products and services offered, why would agencies snub the more affluent 45+ demo?
A recent promotion with an Atlantic City area travel agency moved nearly 250 cruises
at $2,000 each because of its sole promotions on WIBBAGE FM. They loved it and
so do we. If you don't believe our growth phenom, check our playlists. Soon to be part
of Mediabase
 
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?

Why do you denote a series of musically-challenged one hit wonders as representative of a genre?

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.

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.

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.

Rock and Roll definitely changed the Western world + Japan (I know, I was there). Rock took Blues and "Negro" music, gave it another beat and captured the hearts and minds of teens everywhere. TV became a more popular medium due to shows featuring teen music and shows targeted toward teen stars. The 40's had the Bobby Soxers, mostly females who followed their favorite crooners. But Rock enthused virtually all teens and young adults, male and female. Rock augmented the car craze of the 50's and 60's, the surf sounds and California scene of the 60's and 70's. When you see a parade of cars trolling Main Street what is the music you hear? Not Gaga. Not Mars. Oldie Rock.

Black musicians that otherwise could not get their music on the air or couldn't perform were now free to do so.

Folk Rock lead the resistance to the Vietnam War and the push for social reforms.

Rock music incorporated everything from Blues to Country to orchestral to harmonic vocals, even brass, harpsichords and harmonicas. Except possibly for Big Band there has never been a genre so varied in its use of instruments and technical variations.

By contrast today's popular music is relegated to minorities by race or age. 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:
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.

Well said!!
 
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.

Even better!!! :)

No one (I hope) will ever rack up as many #1 singles as the Beatles or Elvis had. The staying power in today's artists just don't have enough talent, the name or popularity to ever come close to these feats.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom