Songs that didn't get much radio airplay

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: The Height Of Trivia

> > Those polls are about as trivial as trivial can get. Well
>
> > almost.
>
> I don't believe it was a poll, though.
>
> I'm pretty sure it was a consensus of Rolling Stone's
> editors, reporters, and columnists.
>
> That elevates it somewhere above the level of mere trivia.

Not much though. Without taking out a copy of the magazine to cheat, name one RS editor, reporter, or columnist.

It's still influential, but only because of its longevity. And the fact that Jann Wenner can control who gets into the Rock Hall and can wrongfully force the inductions to be in NYC. He's a clown--a successful one, but still a clown.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Clap For...Imus

> In the fade out on Clap For The Wolfman, Wolfman Jack tells
> some chick, "You love Imus."

Well, if it was 1974, it all makes sense--both of them were on WNBC.

 

[954]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> We are done with the 50's and 60's because the age of people
> who grew up on this music is over 55. This audience is not
> desirable, and we would be fired if we suggested targeting
> it.

And what does that have to do with the price of
onions in Bermuda?

Over-55s aren't the only ones who like oldies.
Just like 200-year-olds aren't the only ones
who listen to Beethoven.

I didn't become familiar with the great music
of the 1950s until we got oldies station
WAXY-FM in about 1973, followed by American
Graffiti and Happy Days. (I became a teen
around the time the Beatles appeared.)

But, then and now, I found it vastly superior
to the music of the 70s. (As mentioned before,
I stopped listening to R&R in '65.)

There has been a lot of good music produced
before my time, and the age of my teeth has
nothing to do with its relative quality.
From baroque to big band to bebop (and soon
maybe even the Beatles) you and your c_ns_lt_nts
want to disrtegard everything produced before
your target market's 18th birthday. Have you no
respect for quality? They'll never ask your
survey people for good music if they aren't
even aware that it exists!!!

Is it any wonder our culture today is not
only largely illiterate but also culturally
illiterate? People who think (for example)
that Louis Armstrong was the first man to
walk on the moon? Listen carefully...
you may even have some PSAs in house
about this very topic.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> > For example, in 28 years, I've
> > yet to work an event where The Duprees "You Belong To Me"
> > didn't pack the dance floor. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to
> > hear it on the radio anymore. That's because (according to
> > you guys) nobody wants to hear THAT anymore!
>
> Many people may want to hear the song, but they are over 55.
> I have no idea how it researches in over-60-year-olds. That
> is because we have no interest in knowing what folks over 60
> want to hear because we can not progrma to that demo.

Let me put it another way, for clarification.

There is a HUGE difference between songs you are playing at an event and the programming of a radio station. For one, you have a captive audience at the event and radio has to attract listeners. That means, among other things, that the songs that appeal to the target demo -- and ONLY those songs -- are what get played.

Also, "packing the dance floor" has no relevance to radio listening. You could, for the most part, play ANY danceable song and the floor would be packed. That does not mean that those songs are going to be welcomed by people listening to the radio. (Unless they are dancing in their living rooms, offices, or cars.)

Where you are confusing the issue is in thinking "we guys" say the songs are not what people want to hear. "We guys" are in the business of finding the songs that the highest number of people want to hear, and then playing them. Note that I said "want to hear" not "want to dance to".

If we were to take "You Belong To Me" and test it among 25 to 49 year olds (the target demo for an Oldies station) it wouldn't do well because it is not familiar enough to those listeners. But spin it at an event and, because it is a great record to dance to, that lack of familiarity doesn't matter.

Context means everything. Your experience as a mobile DJ does not relate to how radio is programmed, and that is where both David and I find your arguments to be faulty.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Unnecessary duplication of information ...

> And now we BOTH took
> up unnecessary space in this thread.

Like it matters when the thread has more than 150 posts in it (and continues to grow).
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: It's about mass appeal, not your personal taste.

> > We are done with the 50's and 60's because the age of
> people
> > who grew up on this music is over 55. This audience is not
>
> > desirable, and we would be fired if we suggested targeting
>
> > it.
>
> And what does that have to do with the price of
> onions in Bermuda?

Nothing. Neither does you post. To wit:
>
> Over-55s aren't the only ones who like oldies.
> Just like 200-year-olds aren't the only ones
> who listen to Beethoven.

OK, maybe not. But they are essentially nearly all of the Arbitron diarykeepers who indicate oldies listening.

Right now, the majority of traditional 60's-based oldies stations have aobut 60% of the cume in 55+ and the rest almost totally in 45-54.

Since it is rare to find oldies staitons in the top 5 (Cleveland, tampa, Phoenix are among the few exceptions) that means that in under-55 most of these stations are no longer in the top 10 in their markets, and, thus, out of th emoney.

Yes, a handful of out of demo people listen to oldies. There are teens who listen to classical, too... about 15 of them. To the advertiser, tiny showings in demos are irrelevant. They are looking for strong showings which are efficient buys.
>
> I didn't become familiar with the great music
> of the 1950s until we got oldies station
> WAXY-FM in about 1973, followed by American
> Graffiti and Happy Days. (I became a teen
> around the time the Beatles appeared.)

The long TSl to contemporary music stations comes from people who lived a particular musical era, not from those who, oddly and sparsely, learned of this music later. You are using your own case as an example, and what you have is n=1, which is statistically meaningless.

>
> But, then and now, I found it vastly superior
> to the music of the 70s. (As mentioned before,
> I stopped listening to R&R in '65.)

Again, an atypical personal experience. I am now quite tired of most 60's music, and would rather hear Air Supply and the Pet Shop Boys than most anything from back then.... and that is saying a lot.
>
> There has been a lot of good music produced
> before my time, and the age of my teeth has
> nothing to do with its relative quality.

But 99% of listeners like the music they grew up on and the music they experienced in different stages of thier own lives. very few go back to music from a prior era. You did. terrific. Load up an iPod and boogie.

You are an exception to radio. When we do research, and do data cleansing at the end of a session, yours is the interview we delete as you do not help us reach many people, as yur taste is, frankly, bizarre and unadressable.

> From baroque to big band to bebop (and soon
> maybe even the Beatles) you and your c_ns_lt_nts

I don't have any consultants. The company I work for does not have any. We do our own research, and have a very strong programming staff.

> want to disrtegard everything produced before
> your target market's 18th birthday.

Yes, because we have found... most of us from experience (usually involving firing) that doing things like that does not get audience, just as playing long playlists does the same thing. You only have to tank a station once to learn this sort of lession.

> Have you no
> respect for quality? They'll never ask your
> survey people for good music if they aren't
> even aware that it exists!!!

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes people come to a station. Playing things the listeners do not like does not attract them.

In essence, each staiton selects a hill they think they can either take or defend. They try try to build a moat around it, using personalities, promotion, etc. They spend lots of money finding out what, within the broadest interpretation of the format, listeners want. We usually find that extremes repel and the center is where the consensus and biggest passion is.
>
> Is it any wonder our culture today is not
> only largely illiterate but also culturally
> illiterate? People who think (for example)
> that Louis Armstrong was the first man to
> walk on the moon? Listen carefully...

Radio, and indeed, the media, reflect culture much more than they create it. New music movemets come from clubs and similar experiences and avant garde radio picks it up. But the seed is not sewn by radio.

Illiteracy, which you much exaggerate (live somewhere in the third world for a few decades to appreciate how intelligent, educated and advance America really is) can not be blamed on radio. And classical music is, fundamentally, no better than hip hop... both are reflections of the culture of the times.

> you may even have some PSAs in house
> about this very topic.

We don't run recorded PSAs. We do all local causes and events.

 

[fang39]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

I understand what you're saying. My gripe isn't so much with you or those in like positions as it is with the ad community. Like I've said previously, because of advertisers and marketers refusal to adjust the upper part of the market segments to reflect the simple fact that the early "boomer" market are of retirement age, they are missing out on a "golden" opportunity to target a market that STILL has a considerable amount of disposable income and STILL prefer radio as a prime source of entertainment and information.

 

[Oldbones]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> Using the lowest common denominator to determine what songs
> "test well" and get played is both insulting and short
> sighted. Ten years from now, when terrestrial radio is on
> life support, we'll be able to look back and remember those
> "consultants" who led the medium to ruin.
>


Insulting to who? Music geeks who actually remember songs that spent one week at #37 and think they still should be played on the radio? While you may not agree with the results, there is a lot of research that goes into determining these so-called "lowest common denominator" playlists.

I highly doubt terrestrial radio will be on life support in 10 years, though the satellite services will be if they don't start making some money--and fast.

 

[fang39]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> There is a HUGE difference between songs you are playing at
> an event and the programming of a radio station.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference. I play songs poeple actually WANT to hear!

> Note that I said "want to hear" not "want to dance to".

Same difference. I see just as many folks singing along while they're sitting in their seats. And they always come up to me to thank me for playing "their music."

> If we were to take "You Belong To Me" and test it among 25
> to 49 year olds (the target demo for an Oldies station) it
> wouldn't do well because it is not familiar enough to those
> listeners.

I disagree with that statement! Everytime a motion picture comes out that features hits from the 50's/60's (i.e.-Goodfellas, Sleepless In Seattle, etc.)in it's soundtrack, I get bombarded with requests from people in their 20's and 30's to play those songs. You're underestimating the mass appeal of these songs.

> Your experience as a mobile DJ does not relate to how radio is programmed,
> and that is where both David and I find your arguments to be faulty.

My mobile DJ experience relates to providing an entertainment product that people will actually pay money to listen to. If radio programmers and consultants would employ that kind of thinking into their programming, they'd have something that would attract listeners and advertisers alike.

 

[OldiesCat]

chiming in

I agree much of the 60's music has been fried. I also agree that much of has been burned by 250-300 title playlist mentality. I DO NOT subscribe to the "there are thousands of songs to play, so if Oldies had played these all along the format wouldn't be burned out".

All that being said, big-picture, David is absolutely right on many counts:

*** identify a target audience
*** ask them what they want to hear most
*** give them what they want

It's no different than any other business model- find out what your customers want and give it to them the way they say they want it. I do believe Oldies Programmers long ago decided to find their niche and super-serve that niche and if you're going to move with the moving target (age-wise), your audience is aging out of the viable sales demos in radio today.

Oldies would have been smarter to gradually and gently evolve over the years, as all other formats have done. Instead, that 45-54 core of 10 years ago is now 55-64 and, whether we like or agree with it, the 55+ crowd has almost no value in the eyes of Ad Agencies and the advertisers they work for.

So, you can bitch and wave your "I want my 50s back!" all you like, but it ain't gonna happen because, in the eyes of radio in 2006, a profit cannot be made doing business that way.

Not my opinion but the harsh reality of where Oldies is today. If it's OK to hear them on AM or get Satellite or bring CDs in your car, then go do that- knock yourself out. But please get over the fact that advertisers (and radio GMs and sellers) find little value in a 55+ audience.

 

[OldiesCat]

Re: what stiffs?

I didn't mean lyrically relevant- by relevant I'm saying it's a song that's still in demand and a song that had held up over the years.

"Brown-Eyed Girl" is one of those- "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro is not.


>
> Not many 1960s songs are RELEVANT today.
>
> That's why they are enjoyable.
>
> I can't speak for all oldies fans, obviously, but
> we old farts who love oldies often don't like the crap
> and pap and rap that is touted as relevant today.
>
> That's why we prefer oldies -- and would like a
> little more variety in it.
>
> Your Top 400 Overplayed Songs are so overplayed that
> I rarely listen to the oldies station any more.
> Oh, for 400 of the so-called stiffs to be added to
> the playlist.
>
> Give me an example of ten of what you'd call stiffs
> from, say 1960-65...
>
> 73s from 954
>

 

[OldiesCat]

Re: 10 #1 stiffs 1960 - 1965

I think the discussion is about songs you'd hear in somewhat regular rotation on Oldies stations today. These are NOT in regular rotation on WDRC-FM.

>
> These songs actually get played on WDRC-FM Hartford. In
> fact, hardly a weekend goes by without someone requesting
> "Eve of Destruction" either on the Saturday or Sunday
> request shows. Different callers, too. Stiffs in one market
> aren't necessarily stiffs in another, I guess, or maybe this
> is just a case of a station that tends to fly by the seat of
> its pants rather than outsourcing research and/or hiring a
> consultant to make the playlist match the "safe" national
> standard.
>
> A notable No. 2 song that I never hear anywhere anymore,
> though, is the Royal Guardsmen's "Snoopy vs. the Red Baron"
> (stuck behind "I'm a Believer" for two weeks at the end of
> 1966). Yeah, it was a novelty tune, but so was the group's
> "Snoopy's Christmas," which seems to test well enough to
> make just about every station's holiday playlist. The songs
> are very similar (unlike, say, Brenda Lee's "Rockin' Around
> the Christmas Tree," a holiday mainstay, and her "I'm
> Sorry," a pop smash that never gets played today), and
> "Snoopy vs. the Red Baron" was the bigger hit, so why do we
> only hear the Christmas song today?
>

 

[OldiesCat]

stiffs

I would not play one of those ten in almost any rotation on an Oldies station today.

Some songs hold up over time, become classics. For MOST Oldies listeners today (unless all you want is a 60+ audience and very little revenue), these songs are no longer in demand. They were hits in their time but that time has passed.

 

[OldiesCat]

question

totally, 100% absolutely agree.


> We all knew, even then, that the Comos, Andy Williams,
> Sinatras, etc. were for our parents, not us. I would not
> include them in an oldies format. What keeps getting missed
> in this debate is that most listeners are not oldies
> collectors, music geeks or radio geeks. Programming to that
> contingent blows off 99% of the audience.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

question

Your question is based on the assumption that just because you play the biggest hit or two by an artist that radio listeners should automatically like most of the songs by that artist. And a bit of an oversimplification, as well (yeah, right- they're taking sledgehammers and smashing their radios and running screaming from rooms. Don't be daffy).

Oldies is a SONG-BASED format more than artist-based. There are 3 major Righteous Brothers hits that Oldies listeners consistently say they want to hear on a regular basis- "Just Once In My Life" and "Ebb Tide" are not among them. "Still The One" and "Dance With Me" are Orleans' 2 major hits- I suppose you could spin "Love Takes Time" and package it as a "Lost Hit" on a very limited basis but not as a part of regular programming (and I'm not sure I'd play "Want Ads" at all, much less "Stick Up", which was a true stiff).

>
> Do 99 percent of listeners REALLY change the station when
> something unfamiliar, even by an artist they know, gets
> played on their favorite oldies station? Do the same
> listeners who love "Joy to the World" and "Black and White"
> switch stations when "Family of Man" or "Pieces of April"
> comes on? Do the same listeners who have made Honey Cone's
> "Want Ads" a format staple run screaming from the room if
> the station dares to play "Stick Up," which is basically the
> same song with different lyrics? Do the same listeners who
> love Orleans' "Still the One" take sledgehammers to their
> radios upon hearing the first notes of "Love Takes Time"?
>
> I know tight-playlist oldies has a track record of
> maintaining steady listenership. But it's 2006 now, not
> 1986. Listeners who like oldies don't really have anyplace
> else on the dial to go. Top 40 radio is full of Kanye West
> and Kelly Clarkson. AC radio is full of Coldplay and Uncle
> Kracker and Robbie Thomas, and generally won't touch
> anything recorded before 1985. Classic rock radio is full of
> U2 and Pretenders and Nirvana. Nobody else is playing the
> Four Tops or the Grass Roots or Dionne Warwick. So why are
> oldies programmers still so afraid of listeners changing the
> station? They're not going to find anything stylistically
> similar to the music they like elsewhere on FM, and if they
> turn to satellite, they'll be dealing with expanded
> playlists anyway ... so why not open up FM oldies playlists
> a bit?
>

 

[OldiesCat]

80

You shouldn't be playing Madonna and doo-wop on the same station anyway. In fact, if you have 30% 70's music, you should be playing very little pre-Beatles music.


>
> You start putting 1980s music in there and it is
> diluted so much it becomes meaningless ... spanning two
> generations and losing its identity. How many Madonna
> fans go for doowop and vice versa?
>
> 73s from 954
>

 

[954]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> If we were to take "You Belong To Me" and test it among 25
> to 49 year olds (the target demo for an Oldies station) it

That's your problem right there.

Why would your average 25-year-old -- if he has
standard tastes for the music of his teen
years, per Dave's definition -- be in the
target demo for an oldies station. What oldies
frame of reference does he have?
Hell... he was born after John Lennon died!

I can't even imagine an 25-year-old being
interested in a 25-years-ago format.

If you try to do oldies like that, no wonder
it's done so crappily and unprofitably.

You might as well give up on oldies altogether!

No wonder old farts think oldies, as
presented today, sucks.

If every station programs for 18 or 25 to
49, you have a vast underserved market.
Considering that the tail end of the baby
boom turns 42 this year, you have 7 years
to get your sh together before the entire
boom generation is ignored.

Don't tell me advertisers don't ask for it.
If you have it available and have competent
salesmen, it will happen. Just might take
a little more work than targeting 18-year-olds.

73s from 954

<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[OldiesCat]

dead and crispy

No, THAT is the problem.

The advertising world isn't interested in 60 year olds because they view them as having a short "shelf-life" for whatever product they're marketing. They view an 18 year old as a potential customer for life (for anothe 40 years or so). Ad agency folks (most under 40) view Oldies as their parents' format (or even grandparents!), younger GMs, GSMs and sellers don't see Oldies as viable and will not sink a lot of time and resources (not to mention vigorous recruiting) into educating the sellers and the ad community.

As I've said many times, I'm not saying I like it or agree with it. It's just the reality of radio today- 18-49 and 25-54 adult demos.


>
> Don't tell me advertisers don't ask for it.
> If you have it available and have competent
> salesmen, it will happen. Just might take
> a little more work than targeting 18-year-olds.
>
> 73s from 954
>

 

[954]

No longer available

> No, THAT is the problem.
>
> The advertising world isn't interested in 60 year olds
> because they view them as having a short "shelf-life" for
> whatever product they're marketing. They view an 18 year
> old as a potential customer for life (for anothe 40 years or
> so).

You're right, of course.

But they have the wrong attitude.

Think of all the things marketed to me when I
was 18 that are no longer available, a mere
thirty-something years later:

Oldsmobiles, Space Food Sticks, McDonalds Triple Ripple
(a neapolitan cone), Apple Beer, Jefferson stores,
Britt's Stores, Woolco Stores, Zayre stores, Lums
restaurants... Except for Olds, these were all gone
less than 20 years later.

Since I'm not exactly a pop culture maven, my list
is probably not as long as what you'd come up with.

> > 73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[OldiesCat]

available

I would even contend that many products of today come and go a lot faster than that. Actually, your basic statement is a lament of most generations, along with the way we view kids, clothes, music and popular culture, in general.

We're in a very much an instant-gratification society and today's young consumers are much more fickle than previous generations. Much of that can be attributed to the fact that technology changes so quickly, at a faster rate than most of us are able to keep up with.


>
> You're right, of course.
>
> But they have the wrong attitude.
>
> Think of all the things marketed to me when I
> was 18 that are no longer available, a mere
> thirty-something years later:
>
> Oldsmobiles, Space Food Sticks, McDonalds Triple Ripple
> (a neapolitan cone), Apple Beer, Jefferson stores,
> Britt's Stores, Woolco Stores, Zayre stores, Lums
> restaurants... Except for Olds, these were all gone
> less than 20 years later.
>
> Since I'm not exactly a pop culture maven, my list
> is probably not as long as what you'd come up with.
>
> > > 73s from 954
>