Should DJs Pick Some of Their Own Music?

[Silkie]

That speaks volumes.

 

[secondchoice]

Jocks should only be allowed to pick their own music if they were hired for more than the sound of their voice. They should be well versed in the format of the station or channel they are on. They should know the history and live the lifestyle. It injects some personality into their show.

Not going to happen. If such a personality was allowed to develop a following, He (She) would start to demand and possibly receive more money.

 

[TheBigA]

Jocks should only be allowed to pick their own music if they were hired for more than the sound of their voice. They should be well versed in the format of the station or channel they are on. They should know the history and live the lifestyle. It injects some personality into their show.

These days, even the sound of their voice isn't a qualification. And legally, they can't require such God-given talents of an employee.

 

[TheWitch]

And that is why radio has become boring! It should be a job qualification! If you don't know the music you're playing and the sound of your voice isn't a qualification, what is? Why would anyone listen ???

 

[TheBigA]

And that is why radio has become boring! It should be a job qualification! If you don't know the music you're playing and the sound of your voice isn't a qualification, what is? Why would anyone listen ???

Ask the more than 200 million who do.

 

[KFodor]

Back in the "Boss Radio" heyday of KHJ/Los Angeles, though the "playlist" of songs was selected, and playable oldies titles were in a book, the jocks did get to pick the songs from those lists that they would play. It was expected that they would balance slow to fast, rock to R & B and play the proper number of top songs/currents/hitbounds/and golds each hour as determined by the Drake format.

Did it work? Generally speaking...yes. BUT...the amount of time Ron Jacobs spent "riding herd" on the air staff, memo after memo complaining about DJ's playing the same song within 30 minutes because they didn't fill out the paperwork properly, poor song balance, mistakes in song selection and placement in the hour...was extensive. Don't believe me? Read the memos Jacobs has published.

Now ask yourself: does a modern day PD have the kind of time these very successful veteran programmers had to "ride herd" on jock performance? When a PD controls 3,5,8 or more stations, I think you'd be looking at a herculean task that certainly borders on the impossible. And don't say, "that's their job"...it's an easy thing to say, it's much more difficult to put into practice in today's consolidated radio world. They were 2 different worlds, then and now.

Why did most of the "free form" AOR's die? Because someone came in with a tighter, more focused playlist that eliminated the bad song selections that were made from individual DJ "biases" (read: "I like this song, so I'm going to play it").

Now, are there jocks who have that kind of "ear" to pick good songs to play? I'm sure there are. But, I would suggest that for every one that does, there's dozens, if not hundreds who don't. And that is really where the issue is...finding the jocks that have that kind of talent to create such a station.

Then, find a PD who is given the time to nurture such talent and stay on top of them to help both create the atmosphere to allow that creativity, while still keeping the talent from "falling off the cliff" when their creativity begins to interfere with their good judgement.

Now, find an ownership and management willing to take that risk in markets where there are two or three times the available radio signals that there were between 1960 and 1975.

Good luck.

 

[secondchoice]

With today's PC based automation playing the music on a lot of stations, one would think that the system's software would "ride herd" on a staff during live shifts. The system would know what was played in the last (hour, daypart, yesterday, week or even year) and protect the listeners from non acceptable repeats. The system could have lists of acceptable songs based on length, type of artist, speed or how they test. Based on the format, there could be options. Once the "rules" were put in place by the PD or Music Director, the system would enforce them. Requests or request shows could be aired. If a request comes in for something played (time length set by PD or MD) the system would let you know and the DJ could tell the listener sorry we played that (time) how how about (something from the "acceptable" list).

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The system could have lists of acceptable songs based on length, type of artist, speed or how they test. Based on the format, there could be options. Once the "rules" were put in place by the PD or Music Director, the system would enforce them. Requests or request shows could be aired.

I spent a part of my life in radio. I spent a part of my life in the world of computers and programming.

The "computer nerd" part of me could get excited about creating a "nanny system" like the one you are describing.

But I have also spent part of my life just trying to make business functions work. What you describe can be done in theory... and maybe someone can tell us they work under such a system. But the "Nay-sayer" in my bones comes up with this response to your idea:

If you have live human beings who are capapble of being DJs as we knew them at one time, they are not likely to be very creative and willing to work with such a "nanny system" thwarting them on a daily basis, on an hourly basis. You may have the budget to pay for DJs.... or you may have the budget to pay for AND MAINTAIN the computer "nanny system" but how many operations would have the budget to cover both.

I suspect that companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus can fund some pretty sophisticated computerized systems but the people with the street-savvy to run a LARGE business operation are not likely to be very patient with trying to allow every DJ in the world to do their own thing.

It will take quite a genius to come up with a way to make DJs, nanny-systems and good bean-counters compatible with each other.

 

[secondchoice]

It's been done sort of. Pandora lets you skip songs, and selects songs based on what you select. Gaming software allows for varied inputs. I have done it with 3 by 5 cards and a hot clock beside the real clock at several stations. The weirdest I ever saw was the old WFLI. 1070 was cart only and they had huge cart racks on wheels that the PD would roll in and out the studio so songs never got burned!

 

[stevensonair]

Some of the larger public radio music stations use software set up to allow DJ selection within the programming department's rules. So the air talent has a choice of songs that haven't played recently, and fit in the category. Gives a degree of influence and personality without breaking format.

 

[doowopvault]

To all the people who say no.....this is the problem, you have a bunch of business people who don't care, never did care, are not lovers of music, know nothing about the groups, labels etc dictating to the DJ's and the listeners what THEY think the DJ's should play and what THEY think the listeners should hear.This is why radio is hemorging listeners. Keep it up, you are just turning more listeners over to the internet.

 

[TheBigA]

This is why radio is hemorging listeners. Keep it up, you are just turning more listeners over to the internet.

But radio ISN'T "hemoraging listeners." In fact, it's remained pretty steady through the past ten years.

However, if listeners are going to the internet, the radio stations they tend to listen to are the streams of OTA stations.

 

[davideduardo]

To all the people who say no.....this is the problem, you have a bunch of business people who don't care, never did care, are not lovers of music, know nothing about the groups, labels etc dictating to the DJ's and the listeners what THEY think the DJ's should play and what THEY think the listeners should hear.

Actually, any station big enough to afford it is doing extensive research to find out what listeners want to hear.

The days of the "programmer with the golden ear" or the "manager who dictates the music lists" are pretty much gone from the larger markets where listener input determines the music played.

 

[doowopvault]

To all the people who say no.....this is the problem, you have a bunch of business people who don't care, never did care, are not lovers of music, know nothing about the groups, labels etc dictating to the DJ's and the listeners what THEY think the DJ's should play and what THEY think the listeners should hear.

Actually, any station big enough to afford it is doing extensive research to find out what listeners want to hear.

The days of the "programmer with the golden ear" or the "manager who dictates the music lists" are pretty much gone from the larger markets where listener input determines the music played.

Oh David, David, David.... you and I know what this so called "research" consists of, it's a damn joke, just like the Corporations that own them. Plus, this "research" is then applied to the entire maket!! please my man, give me a break.

 

[doowopvault]

This is why radio is hemorging listeners. Keep it up, you are just turning more listeners over to the internet.

But radio ISN'T "hemoraging listeners." In fact, it's remained pretty steady through the past ten years.

However, if listeners are going to the internet, the radio stations they tend to listen to are the streams of OTA stations.

I do not agree. We have young people listening to IPods, downloading tunes from the Internet and listening to Inertnet stations and podcasts. We have people from their 20's up to their 70's turning to the Internet and podcasts. whether it be an Internet station, itunes, Pandora or podcasts, to hear the music they love,they are not turning to Radio as I and others did for a considerable part of the day. Radio is primarily listened to in the car or at work. But that is even slowly ending with office wokers listening to the Internet on their PC's while they are working or people listening to CD's in their car. Radio, primarily is listened to for Sports Talk, News Talk or Religious programing.But with the lack of Liberal Talk Shows, Consevative Talk is on the downward slope. When you say that radio is holding steady...what one has to do is look at the numbers from say 10 to 15 years ago, then look at the numbers NOW.I asked this question to over 1,500 people that follow my show on FB, they all said that their primary source for music is the Internet, and we are talking about people from their late 40's on up to their early 70's who use Internet stations and podcasts as a source for the music they love, because Corporate radio has locked them out in regards to Doo Wop and vocal group harmony.
Here is just one of the many articles on this issue. http://radio.about.com/library/weekly/aa092103a.htm As long as Corporate Radio continues to be closely tied to the Corporate labels and dictates what THEY want the listeners to hear, and as long as Radio continues to block out a large number of listeners for the Bulls%&* reason of "they are not a viable group for advertisers", you will not see these numbers increase, just slowly fall.

 

[TheBigA]

I do not agree.

Of course you don't. But the facts are the facts. And they don't agree with you.

When you say that radio is holding steady...what one has to do is look at the numbers from say 10 to 15 years ago, then look at the numbers NOW.

I have. The numbers are about the same. What HAS changed in that time is that people are using many other devices to listen to the radio. But they still seem to come back to the radio. And as I said, even when they use the internet, the source for the content tends to be traditional OTA radio stations.

By the way, the dateline on your article was ten years ago.

 

[doowopvault]

I do not agree.

Of course you don't. But the facts are the facts. And they don't agree with you.

When you say that radio is holding steady...what one has to do is look at the numbers from say 10 to 15 years ago, then look at the numbers NOW.

I have. The numbers are about the same. What HAS changed in that time is that people are using many other devices to listen to the radio. But they still seem to come back to the radio. And as I said, even when they use the internet, the source for the content tends to be traditional OTA radio stations.

By the way, the dateline on your article was ten years ago.

YES, the article was from that time period......so what does that tell you, it isn't getting better, just worst. I can't tell you the last time I talked to someone who listened to the radio for music....just sports or talk, that's it.

 

[TheBigA]

YES, the article was from that time period......so what does that tell you,

It tells me you found an article that you agree with. That's all.

I can't tell you the last time I talked to someone who listened to the radio for music....just sports or talk, that's it.

And yet we have scientific data that shows 94% of the public listens to OTA radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

And yet we have scientific data that shows 94% of the public listens to OTA radio.

Not this old canard...again.

In order to be counted, people have to be part of Arbitron's PPM or diary panel. And they have to listen (or say they do) for five minutes once a week.

The real question is how often and how long? What percentage of the population listens for at least an hour, five days a week? And how does that percentage compare to 20, 30 or 40 years ago?

Also, how do they define terrestrial radio? Podcasts and downloads from terrestrial broadcasters? Online audio streams from terrestrial broadcasters? I'm glad to see terrestrial broadcasters embracing the future but this should not count as listening to rusty tower radio.

If you set the bar low enough, anybody can jump it.

 

[TheBigA]

In order to be counted, people have to be part of Arbitron's PPM or diary panel.

Not just from Arbitron. Multiple studies confirm the number is true.

The real question is how often and how long?

You're now changing the question. Has anything else changed in the last 40 years? Do people work more than they did then? Why yes, they do. Are people's lives busier than they were? Why yes, they are. Do they have lots of other devices? Yes they do. So the marketplace has changed. Circumstances other than radio have changed. The OP's point was if radio was still owned and programmed the way it was 30 years ago, none of this would have happened. That is total fiction.

I'm glad to see terrestrial broadcasters embracing the future but this should not count as listening to rusty tower radio.

The point is the content. Radio companies and programmers don't make the devices people use. They make the content they listen to. If they listen to that content via other means, they should get credit for it.