Reasons why Dance is not being done in Chicago

[Rocketman]

> > Very well said. Also, if I can put the icing on the cake,
>
> > radio programming has become an exact science and it's
> > program directors and music directors, scientists and
> > assistants.
>
> Not really. Programmers have better tools today than in the
> past, mostly due to the ability to use computers to process
> information.
>
> In the past, the tools were the sales of 45 rpm singles and
> juke box plays. But we did not know who bought or played the
> songs. We now know who likes what, and can do a better job
> of satisfying the listener.

Again, processing information such as this comes down to a science. The methodology has become more scientific, while maintaining a creative edge.

>
> But the creation of the station, whether it is in imaging,
> promotion, moring shows, or what songs to add are all the
> realm of creativity, not science.
>
> > No one, after spending 10-20 years in the
> > pee-wee league and minors is going to come to the majors
> and
> > risk their one shot at bringing home the gold. If
> research
> > can keep you in the game to keep your comfortable salary
> > than you bet that's what they are going to use to ensure
> > that they stay in that position for many, many, many years
>
> > to come.
>
> There is no change in dependence on song research from the
> times of 50's and 60's. All that changed is that the
> research is better.

Exactly, and you had much more payola back then, so how accurate is the research that you speak of during the 50s and 60s.

> > Being a good programmer is not always a gut
> > feeling, but being able to not only research the music and
>
> > the perception of the radio station, but to also be able
> to
> > extrapolate EFFECTIVELY all the research that comes back
> so
> > that you can implement the necessary changes on your radio
>
> > station.
>
> In other words, you agree with me. Research is a tool, just
> like the latest audio processing or a new transmitter is a
> tool. Alone, worthless. Cobined with the ability to
> interpret and implement in an attractive manner, very
> useful.

Very true and I agree with you 100%.
>
> >
> > Radio programming is no longer about playing your favorite
>
> > music, but very much big business, with lots of pressue
> and
> > money on the line.
>
> It never was about playing an individual's favorite music,
> at least not at successful stations.

Which you wouldn't think is the case based on this thread. I get the feeling that some people would like to get a dance station back on the air, because it's their favorite music and it's being underserved in their respective communities. What they fail to realize is that it may not be financially savvy for a Fortune 500 company to do so, because the success of the format is not lucrative enough.


> > We now live in the era of Sarbanes Oxley
> > where all revenues need to be accounted for, thus there
> has
> > to be a clear line of how to make a profit.
>
> Where does Sarbanes Oxley tell you how to pick the next
> potential hit, how to write a liner or how to aircheck a
> jock?

No, but it requires you to keep a keen eye on what you spend your money on and how you spend it. Everything is accountable and at the end of the day it must exhibit a definitive balance sheet, which needs to do exactly that: balance. PDs are scrutinizing what they are spending their money on, because at the end of the day, Wall Street is looking at what the station is generating on a weekly, monthly, and yearly basis and the station needs to make sure that the format is not only maximizing their ratings, but revenues as well. Thus, SOX is another way to ensure that on the financial end, everything runs smoothly and without any unanswered questions.

> >
> > Radio programming is not the "life party" that it may have
>
> > been 10-15 years ago, but rather a very challanging
> > profession. My hat does go off to all the successful
> > programmers, especially in the major markets, where they
> > have stayed for many years over. It's really not an easy
> > job by any stretch of the imagination!
>
> Agreed. What has made the job harder is increased
> competition, fragmentation of tastes in the USA, and many
> other things... including alternative entertainment options
> like iPods and video games and cable TV.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Rob Austin
Vice President
JamTraxx Media Inc.
http://www.jamtraxxmedia.com
"Major Market Solutions for Your Radio Station's Needs!"</P>

 

[davideduardo]

.
>
> Again, processing information such as this comes down to a
> science. The methodology has become more scientific, while
> maintaining a creative edge.
>
> Exactly, and you had much more payola back then, so how
> accurate is the research that you speak of during the 50s
> and 60s.
> >
> > In other words, you agree with me. Research is a tool,
> just
> > like the latest audio processing or a new transmitter is a
>
> > tool. Alone, worthless. Cobined with the ability to
> > interpret and implement in an attractive manner, very
> > useful.
>
> Very true and I agree with you 100%.
> >
> > It never was about playing an individual's favorite music,
>
> > at least not at successful stations.
>
> Which you wouldn't think is the case based on this thread.
> I get the feeling that some people would like to get a dance
> station back on the air, because it's their favorite music
> and it's being underserved in their respective communities.
> What they fail to realize is that it may not be financially
> savvy for a Fortune 500 company to do so, because the
> success of the format is not lucrative enough.
> > Where does Sarbanes Oxley tell you how to pick the next
> > potential hit, how to write a liner or how to aircheck a
> > jock?
>
> No, but it requires you to keep a keen eye on what you spend
> your money on and how you spend it. Everything is
> accountable and at the end of the day it must exhibit a
> definitive balance sheet, which needs to do exactly that:
> balance. PDs are scrutinizing what they are spending their
> money on, because at the end of the day, Wall Street is
> looking at what the station is generating on a weekly,
> monthly, and yearly basis and the station needs to make sure
> that the format is not only maximizing their ratings, but
> revenues as well. Thus, SOX is another way to ensure that
> on the financial end, everything runs smoothly and without
> any unanswered questions.
>

Good points. There is more focus on accoutability, forced by laws that did not exist years ago. What you say some posters don't get is in fact due to legal conditions that were non/existent a while ago. Very interesting perspective you have given this!

 

[noisebox]

> >
> > the big corporations might not "get" dance. so be it.
> > whatever format they choose to put on the signals that
> they
> > own is up to them to make them succeed or fail.
>
> Well, they make many mistakes now don't they.


Yep, they sure do. Costs them money. People get fired. Formats get flipped. Cycle repeats until they start making money again. (IF that happens, the money making thing. If it doesn't make money, they polish the turd, run it lean and sell. How many times have we seen that?)


> > in a market the size of chicago, nyc or l.a., the big
> > corporations that own all the great signals don't care if
> > "dance" is popular. they want to know only one thing for
> the
> > format they chose for any particular signal = 'HOW IS IT
> > GOING TO BILL?'
>
> And as we've seen in many format switches, that's BS. If it
> were true many people who made the choices to switch to
> formats that were supposed to outbill and outprofit what
> they replaced HAVEN'T. They're in the gutter and losing more
> and more than before.


See above reply.


> > in the top 3 radio markets - if a format doesn't bill
> > upwards of 15 or 20 million a year, they don't want to
> hear
> > it.
>
> Try telling that to Disney (as you so pointed out) Clear
> Channel and a few other companies that all "researched" the
> next big thing and found out (not that they've ever admitted
> it) that they haven't gotten any vaseline to go with the
> fisting they've taken since they flipped.


Gee, didn't someone say something about making a lot of mistakes earlier? We know that Disney/ABC/Zone thing is living for whatever strange reason they have chosen to keep it alive. Maybe there is someone named Beelzebub in the mix. I have no idea. But there it is in all it's glory. Windy 100 was supposed to work, but even Bonneville finally gave in and changed that. It's a risky business. 2 or 3 of the stations in your cluster very profitable and that 4th one isn't? Who cares. There's a profit in that market and all go to the bottom line of one company. Funny how that works out. And life goes on.


> >
> > radio isn't in the business of serving the public interest
> > any more and hasn't been since the deregulation in the
> > 90's.
> > it's all about the bottom line and return on investment.
> > it's not about ratings as much as it is on making a
> > dollar.
> >
> When was this different? About 1966? Granted now a dog
> station with no ratings can bill but that has alot to do
> with how the entire media buying process is set up compared
> to "the old days".


Okay, so maybe I was being a little idealistic there. I grew up with a station very similar to "Radio 89 - WLS" and it was fun, served it's market well with information, news, hit music and entertaining personalities. Annnnnd it was after 1966...nevertheless, it's not about the media buying process, it's more about marketing to targets and figuring how to sell that to advertisers. Those mid-to-low rated A/C stations that are outbilling others in the top 10? Marketing. Hitting the targets. Right between the eyes.


> > PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS DANCE, STOP BRINGING UP
> > THIS DISCUSSION. YOU OR I OR THE POPULATION OF SCHAUMBURG,
>
> > ELK GROVE VILLAGE, MT. PROSPECT, PALATINE, GLENVIEW,
> > WAUKEGAN, OAK PARK, ELMHURST, ELMWOOD PARK HARVEY, MONEE,
> > AURORA, DOWNERS GROVE, BOLINGBROOK, AND LAKE FOREST ARE
> NOT
> > GOING TO BRING A DANCE STATION BACK TO THE CHICAGO AREA.
> > IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
> >
> And as a B96 employee stated, Satellite Radio banging it all
> day long. He's just one of the many radio has alienated, and
> he works in the industry. I may scan once in a while (to
> have something to laugh at) but I'm not really listening
> anymore either and my career was radio.


Yes there are more "distractions" from radio. All the fragmentation has alienated many listeners. The corporations are responsible for a lot of it. They won't admit it though. Radio needs to learn from that. (this is me NOT holding my breath)

Most have learned that the website is a beautiful thing. Especially if you have a signal that sucks and you are STREAMING. Even if your signal doesn't suck, it is another way to get to listeners WITHOUT RADIOS, for instance. If they're logging on regularly, you've got 'em. I don't have Satellite Radio - but I can hear some of it when I log on to their websites too. Now there's podcasting and cellphones and texting and video games and...


> > you can wish it all you want. you can whine and moan about
> > the fact that "the big corporations won't give us a dance
> > station" - THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
>
> You're correct. And people don't listen to radio as much
> because "THEY DON'T HAVE TO".


You are correct as well.


> > we can talk about this 'til
> > we're blue in the face or can make heads or tails out of
> > what Mr. David Eduardo is saying - BUT THERE WILL NOT BE
> > ANOTHER GOOD FULL-SIGNAL DANCE STATION IN CHICAGO FOR A
> > GOOD LONG WHILE. if EVER again.
>
> We've only had two full signal dance stations in Chicago
> WDAI and WBMX. There have not been any other FULL SIGNAL
> stations but I get your point. Even if the last one which
> was a suburban station almost outbilled a city grade signal.
>


(yeah, i should have said "city-grade" - all the signals are "full" even if it's a class A on a short tower in arlington heights, right?)

B96 was a dance station for a minute wasn't it? (like from 88-ish into the early 90's?) I remember taking 49ers, Blue Tattoo, Musto & Bones, lots of FRESH OFF THE PRESS house music and pop remixes up to Todd on Fridays and playing the stuff for him. A good chunk of it made it to the airwaves...it was dance or at least I thought it was for a little while...correct me if I'm wrong....but still a "top-40" station.


> >
> > you have a better chance of winning the lottery than this
> > happening.
> >
> This is true
>
> > *steps off soapbox*
> >
> You first.
>

You kinda dared me to get back up on it.

Just so you know where I'm coming from: I used to run a successful record pool in Chicago and had a good amount of the mix-show DJs (WGCI/WBMX/WBBM/ WCRX/WLUW/WCYC...etc.) in that pool. I am a HUGE dance music fan. I still DJ in clubs when I have that opportunity. Been doing that too long to give it up. I am also a huge radio fan, but becoming more disillusioned with it. I have been in the record business for 12+ and in broadcasting for the past 10 or so years as well.

The way radio has changed over the past 15 years scares me. Some say it's better. Some don't. Same with the record business. Both broadcasting and the music industries have been taken over by and in some cases run by and ruined by people who don't necessarily understand them, but want profits. Ratings, signals, employees, formats don't matter, PROFITS do. That is the bottom line. That is also just my pointed little observation about it all.

*off soapbox now.

**don't even get me started on research or consultants! wink wink...<P ID="signature">______________
"TO HELP THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA: 1-800-HELP-NOW"</P>

 

[musicloverII]

Soap Box Time:

And I'm sure your DJs (as well you) did mixes for me at one time and/or stations I consulted. In fact, some are still mixing to this day. After pointing one of them to your post they as well as I concur that at one time under Dave Shakes B96 was far more dance oriented than it is today however B96's target demo today considers dance music hip hop (in many cases, not all)
This individual told me that some of the titles you were mentioning were called imports found at stores such as Hip House Records or Julmpin' Records? He had emailed some of them to me such as Mike Wilson's songs he cut with Sean Christopher, Daisy D, Jomanda, 49'ers, Clubland, AB Logic, FHR Project, Two Young Brothers, Corina, Heavy D And The Boys and more. While I don't recall many of these tracks they were certainly good records that surely spiced up the stations playlist. With the mixers being so more prominant then compared to now (as I see how homogonenized it has become), it's a shame that the mixers aren't used in unison to break new music at the street level the way the used to, create the buzz and from there, possibly have a new song become a hit. The mix shows aren't being used for the same purpose as they were back then. They're rehashing the same songs over and over that are already in rotation for the most part and those who aren't are off on some rave trip playing tracks that have no words for an entire set.

As I recall B96 was flying relatively high as a dance station in those times. I recall coming back to Chicago on occasion to hearing live broadcasts from nightclubs and the station was sounding far better than it does today.

While these are different times, we're not on a different planet. Perhaps it's time for B96 to revisit some of it's heritage and sprinkle in hits that are above 100 BPM as well as the golds that they can lay claim to from about 1994 to 1999; revamp their mix show completely and let their mixers do what good club jocks and good mix show DJs do best.

It's also time to reconsider your air staff where lacking. Plug the hole in dyke (wow, that could be politically incorrect) before the water really starts to gush out. They're 8 months behind the curve already. A large portion of the listening audience is exiting, time to change the format again - without telling anyone.

> > >
> > > the big corporations might not "get" dance. so be it.
> > > whatever format they choose to put on the signals that
> > they
> > > own is up to them to make them succeed or fail.
> >
> > Well, they make many mistakes now don't they.
>
>
> Yep, they sure do. Costs them money. People get fired.
> Formats get flipped. Cycle repeats until they start making
> money again. (IF that happens, the money making thing. If it
> doesn't make money, they polish the turd, run it lean and
> sell. How many times have we seen that?)
>
>
> > > in a market the size of chicago, nyc or l.a., the big
> > > corporations that own all the great signals don't care
> if
> > > "dance" is popular. they want to know only one thing for
>
> > the
> > > format they chose for any particular signal = 'HOW IS IT
>
> > > GOING TO BILL?'
> >
> > And as we've seen in many format switches, that's BS. If
> it
> > were true many people who made the choices to switch to
> > formats that were supposed to outbill and outprofit what
> > they replaced HAVEN'T. They're in the gutter and losing
> more
> > and more than before.
>
>
> See above reply.
>
>
> > > in the top 3 radio markets - if a format doesn't bill
> > > upwards of 15 or 20 million a year, they don't want to
> > hear
> > > it.
> >
> > Try telling that to Disney (as you so pointed out) Clear
> > Channel and a few other companies that all "researched"
> the
> > next big thing and found out (not that they've ever
> admitted
> > it) that they haven't gotten any vaseline to go with the
> > fisting they've taken since they flipped.
>
>
> Gee, didn't someone say something about making a lot of
> mistakes earlier? We know that Disney/ABC/Zone thing is
> living for whatever strange reason they have chosen to keep
> it alive. Maybe there is someone named Beelzebub in the mix.
> I have no idea. But there it is in all it's glory. Windy 100
> was supposed to work, but even Bonneville finally gave in
> and changed that. It's a risky business. 2 or 3 of the
> stations in your cluster very profitable and that 4th one
> isn't? Who cares. There's a profit in that market and all go
> to the bottom line of one company. Funny how that works out.
> And life goes on.
>
>
> > >
> > > radio isn't in the business of serving the public
> interest
> > > any more and hasn't been since the deregulation in the
> > > 90's.
> > > it's all about the bottom line and return on investment.
>
> > > it's not about ratings as much as it is on making a
> > > dollar.
> > >
> > When was this different? About 1966? Granted now a dog
> > station with no ratings can bill but that has alot to do
> > with how the entire media buying process is set up
> compared
> > to "the old days".
>
>
> Okay, so maybe I was being a little idealistic there. I grew
> up with a station very similar to "Radio 89 - WLS" and it
> was fun, served it's market well with information, news, hit
> music and entertaining personalities. Annnnnd it was after
> 1966...nevertheless, it's not about the media buying
> process, it's more about marketing to targets and figuring
> how to sell that to advertisers. Those mid-to-low rated A/C
> stations that are outbilling others in the top 10?
> Marketing. Hitting the targets. Right between the eyes.
>
>
> > > PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS DANCE, STOP BRINGING
> UP
> > > THIS DISCUSSION. YOU OR I OR THE POPULATION OF
> SCHAUMBURG,
> >
> > > ELK GROVE VILLAGE, MT. PROSPECT, PALATINE, GLENVIEW,
> > > WAUKEGAN, OAK PARK, ELMHURST, ELMWOOD PARK HARVEY,
> MONEE,
> > > AURORA, DOWNERS GROVE, BOLINGBROOK, AND LAKE FOREST ARE
> > NOT
> > > GOING TO BRING A DANCE STATION BACK TO THE CHICAGO AREA.
>
> > > IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
> > >
> > And as a B96 employee stated, Satellite Radio banging it
> all
> > day long. He's just one of the many radio has alienated,
> and
> > he works in the industry. I may scan once in a while (to
> > have something to laugh at) but I'm not really listening
> > anymore either and my career was radio.
>
>
> Yes there are more "distractions" from radio. All the
> fragmentation has alienated many listeners. The corporations
> are responsible for a lot of it. They won't admit it though.
> Radio needs to learn from that. (this is me NOT holding my
> breath)
>
> Most have learned that the website is a beautiful thing.
> Especially if you have a signal that sucks and you are
> STREAMING. Even if your signal doesn't suck, it is another
> way to get to listeners WITHOUT RADIOS, for instance. If
> they're logging on regularly, you've got 'em. I don't have
> Satellite Radio - but I can hear some of it when I log on to
> their websites too. Now there's podcasting and cellphones
> and texting and video games and...
>
>
> > > you can wish it all you want. you can whine and moan
> about
> > > the fact that "the big corporations won't give us a
> dance
> > > station" - THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
> >
> > You're correct. And people don't listen to radio as much
> > because "THEY DON'T HAVE TO".
>
>
> You are correct as well.
>
>
> > > we can talk about this 'til
> > > we're blue in the face or can make heads or tails out of
>
> > > what Mr. David Eduardo is saying - BUT THERE WILL NOT BE
>
> > > ANOTHER GOOD FULL-SIGNAL DANCE STATION IN CHICAGO FOR A
> > > GOOD LONG WHILE. if EVER again.
> >
> > We've only had two full signal dance stations in Chicago
> > WDAI and WBMX. There have not been any other FULL SIGNAL
> > stations but I get your point. Even if the last one which
> > was a suburban station almost outbilled a city grade
> signal.
> >
>
>
> (yeah, i should have said "city-grade" - all the signals are
> "full" even if it's a class A on a short tower in arlington
> heights, right?)
>
> B96 was a dance station for a minute wasn't it? (like from
> 88-ish into the early 90's?) I remember taking 49ers, Blue
> Tattoo, Musto & Bones, lots of FRESH OFF THE PRESS house
> music and pop remixes up to Todd on Fridays and playing the
> stuff for him. A good chunk of it made it to the
> airwaves...it was dance or at least I thought it was for a
> little while...correct me if I'm wrong....but still a
> "top-40" station.
>
>
> > >
> > > you have a better chance of winning the lottery than
> this
> > > happening.
> > >
> > This is true
> >
> > > *steps off soapbox*
> > >
> > You first.
> >
>
> You kinda dared me to get back up on it.
>
> Just so you know where I'm coming from: I used to run a
> successful record pool in Chicago and had a good amount of
> the mix-show DJs (WGCI/WBMX/WBBM/ WCRX/WLUW/WCYC...etc.) in
> that pool. I am a HUGE dance music fan. I still DJ in clubs
> when I have that opportunity. Been doing that too long to
> give it up. I am also a huge radio fan, but becoming more
> disillusioned with it. I have been in the record business
> for 12+ and in broadcasting for the past 10 or so years as
> well.
>
> The way radio has changed over the past 15 years scares me.
> Some say it's better. Some don't. Same with the record
> business. Both broadcasting and the music industries have
> been taken over by and in some cases run by and ruined by
> people who don't necessarily understand them, but want
> profits. Ratings, signals, employees, formats don't matter,
> PROFITS do. That is the bottom line. That is also just my
> pointed little observation about it all.
>
> *off soapbox now.
>
> **don't even get me started on research or consultants! wink
> wink...
>

 

[magicmk]

Re: mixshows

> With the mixers being so more prominant
> then compared to now (as I see how homogonenized it has
> become), it's a shame that the mixers aren't used in unison
> to break new music at the street level the way the used to,
> create the buzz and from there, possibly have a new song
> become a hit. The mix shows aren't being used for the same
> purpose as they were back then. They're rehashing the same
> songs over and over that are already in rotation for the
> most part and those who aren't are off on some rave trip
> playing tracks that have no words for an entire set.
>
> As I recall B96 was flying relatively high as a dance
> station in those times. I recall coming back to Chicago on
> occasion to hearing live broadcasts from nightclubs and the
> station was sounding far better than it does today.
>

I actually remember once upon a time when B96 used to do their mixes live right from the booths at the clubs (usually one or two different clubs a night, combined with studio mixes, if I remember correctly). As a youngster, I really thought it would be cool to be at the club and part of the "live experience."

I distinctly remember the first weekend that B96 dumped the live remote mixes and began doing EVERYTHING from the studios. I ventured out to Eric's North (I have no idea what that place is now, it was later called Shadow's) and was stunned to find out that there was no live broadcast that night. Todd Cavanah was still the MD doing middays back then, and he was there handling the remote for Eric's North on B96, although he was only talking during the stop sets, since there was no live mix. I asked him why the departure from the live sets, and he explained that it was "too hard to break new music on the air that way." It made perfect sense, and it still does. Too bad they aren't abiding by it anymore. I also miss the different dance mix flavors you heard on B96 back in those days. You could always count on hearing freestyle from Tim Schommer, old school sets from Frankie Hollywood, acid/hiphouse from Bad Boy Bill, etc. A few other well knowns came along later, but as for now, I can't name a single guy you might hear on the weekend mixshows now. I've heard rumors as to why they have the guys they have now, but it's irrelevant. The mixshows I hear are pretty meaningless anymore.

 

[noisebox]

**Gee, this is fun. You make a lot of sense. I hope I make 1/2 as much sense!
see below...

> Soap Box Time:
>
> And I'm sure your DJs (as well you) did mixes for me at one
> time and/or stations I consulted. In fact, some are still
> mixing to this day. After pointing one of them to your post
> they as well as I concur that at one time under Dave Shakes
> B96 was far more dance oriented than it is today however
> B96's target demo today considers dance music hip hop (in
> many cases, not all)


i would say that 90% probably consider the hip-hop 'dance' music, as opposed to "club" or "house". i remember playing some of the music for dave once, and he gave me the "what the heck is that?" look. of course they would try some out - it was selling like gangbusters in chicago and huge in the clubs... oh yeah - and the stuff tested through the roof!


> This individual told me that some of the titles you were
> mentioning were called imports found at stores such as Hip
> House Records or Julmpin' Records? He had emailed some of
> them to me such as Mike Wilson's songs he cut with Sean
> Christopher, Daisy D, Jomanda, 49'ers, Clubland, AB Logic,
> FHR Project, Two Young Brothers, Corina, Heavy D And The
> Boys and more. While I don't recall many of these tracks
> they were certainly good records that surely spiced up the
> stations playlist. With the mixers being so more prominant
> then compared to now (as I see how homogonenized it has
> become), it's a shame that the mixers aren't used in unison
> to break new music at the street level the way the used to,
> create the buzz and from there, possibly have a new song
> become a hit. The mix shows aren't being used for the same
> purpose as they were back then. They're rehashing the same
> songs over and over that are already in rotation for the
> most part and those who aren't are off on some rave trip
> playing tracks that have no words for an entire set.
>

whoever is running the mixes on B96 now - should just stop. and go be a police man or something. the hip-hop is too much, as is the techno-rave stuff. how can they program a lot of that stuff in the mixes?

that music you mentioned is what made B96 stand out - much like power 106 in l.a. when it was dance and power 96 in miami and the others. they each had their own identity in their markets that NOBODY could copy anywhere else. because the music or the vibe wouldn't work anywhere else like that.

the stores like gramaphone records, state street records, DJ records, hot jams, etc... had all that music for people to buy...until most of the major labels killed off selling singles and/or vinyl. it was all about breaking new music. now it's about playing it safe, keeping your job and showing a profit. screw everything else. if it's already selling and a hit, if it sounds good and fits, MAYBE then it will get played. BS if you ask me. and people wonder why music and radio are losing ground...


> As I recall B96 was flying relatively high as a dance
> station in those times. I recall coming back to Chicago on
> occasion to hearing live broadcasts from nightclubs and the
> station was sounding far better than it does today.
>

gee, wonder why it all stopped? doing those live broadcasts from clubs on friday & saturday nights was the BEST. sometimes there would be 4 one-hour live broadcasts from 4 different clubs in 4 different parts of the city with 4 of the mix-show DJS on friday and/or saturday nights. and maybe have 1 or 2 mixing live in the studio. tell me that didn't rock! oh...i know why it stopped: $


> While these are different times, we're not on a different
> planet. Perhaps it's time for B96 to revisit some of it's
> heritage and sprinkle in hits that are above 100 BPM as well
> as the golds that they can lay claim to from about 1994 to
> 1999; revamp their mix show completely and let their mixers
> do what good club jocks and good mix show DJs do best.
>

yeah, HELLO? most of the guys who do mix-shows now would empty a dancefloor. mind you, some of these bedroom DJs are good, and a lot of the mixers are good. but some that are on the air shouldn't be. i remember one time, i had a top mixer come to my club - and he got BOOED off the stage. couldn't program to a dancefloor. some people/programmers don't get how huge a difference that is.

back when it was just 'GCI & 'BMX doing the mix-shows (and they were HOUSE/CLUB mix-shows! on commercial radio stations) you could be eating outside on rush street or state street or walking down division to the clubs and hear the hottest mixes pumpin' out of car speakers from THE RADIO - because everybody had to hear those mixes. you could only hear them on the radio! it gave me goosebumps!!! those guys could mix. later on, when 'BMX flipped, B96 took up where 'BMX left off for the most part. these days, it's a lot of scratching and edits on computer. whoopdie woo. i used to do all my mixes live to tape and in ONE take. just like i was at the club - if i made a mistake, the crowd would boo. others did a lot of edits with razor blades. i never learned how to do that (for my mixes anyway!) nevertheless, i still get to hear Kenny Jammin' Jason over the 'net whenever I have time - he's one of the best!


> It's also time to reconsider your air staff where lacking.
> Plug the hole in dyke (wow, that could be politically
> incorrect) before the water really starts to gush out.
> They're 8 months behind the curve already. A large portion
> of the listening audience is exiting, time to change the
> format again - without telling anyone.
>

HERE HERE!!!!! holla and bling anyone?

and do you think they...who ever "they" are - could be that sneaky again to morph formats without anybody catching on? or would it be made into a big deal for some short-term attention? hmmmm...<P ID="signature">______________
"TO HELP THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA: 1-800-HELP-NOW"</P>

 

[chicagowolves77]

> I would agree with Zelen on this in more ways than one for
> that matter!
>
if infinity had brains, which they don't, they woulda switched oldies to 670,put the score on 105.9, and flipped b96 to dance. let's see, a 50k watt oldies station heared through several states and canada,a dance station that fills an obvious void in a market where there is a proven track record of sucess, and moving a sports station to a frequency that won't have much use once stern leaves. wow, things that would make sense. then again, this is corporate radio, where risks and common sense are strongly forbidden.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by chicagowolves77 on 09/27/05 08:47 AM.</FONT></P>