The Music & State of Alternative 2023

[JD36108]

There has to be a basis for a radio station to add a new song. There are lots of songs out there, so why should I add one song and not add another. Programmers look for a reason to add. In the CHR world, the reason can be research, or label support, or incredible word of mouth. Back in the 90s, programmers would read R&R, and see what other stations were playing. Now they talk to their format heads and ask what songs are working in other markets. There has to be a basis other than subjective personal taste. That's what's missing. A lot of these posts come from people asking, "Why don't they play this song instead of that song?" What would be the basis for doing that other than personal taste? What data do you have? What research is there? What track record does the artist have? Those are the questions that need to be answered. They're music questions, not radio questions.

the problem both with alternative and CHR come down to being that we as an industry have allowed corporate radio's spaghetti test control the charts.

gone are the days of programmers, except for mom and pop outlets, where the PD and or MD has a keen ear for what he or she knows will be a hit.
for CHR to just throw anything on air because tiktok says it's a trend is dangerous ground.

 

[TheBigA]

the problem both with alternative and CHR come down to being that we as an industry have allowed corporate radio's spaghetti test control the charts.

Let me repeat: You need to have a basis for adding a song. The concept of a " PD with a keen ear" is total malarky. That's not a basis of anything. That's personal taste. That's college radio. In the real world, the music business is supposed to do its own research in support of it's music and artists. That's what we get in other genres. We have trade magazines where we can see this information. But alternative people don't like corporate radio and they also don't like corporate music business. When you demonize the entire process, there's no basis anymore. This is why music that should be heard on alternative radio is being pitched to other formats where there is support and infrastructure to get the music heard and played. Where this isn't this negativity about corporate this or that. And when people work together, the music gets heard, and the artists have careers.

 

[PrezSquid]

There has to be a basis for a radio station to add a new song. There are lots of songs out there, so why should I add one song and not add another. Programmers look for a reason to add. In the CHR world, the reason can be research, or label support, or incredible word of mouth. Back in the 90s, programmers would read R&R, and see what other stations were playing. Now they talk to their format heads and ask what songs are working in other markets. There has to be a basis other than subjective personal taste. That's what's missing. A lot of these posts come from people asking, "Why don't they play this song instead of that song?" What would be the basis for doing that other than personal taste? What data do you have? What research is there? What track record does the artist have? Those are the questions that need to be answered. They're music questions, not radio questions.

analytics isn't always successful though, why do you think the alt-poppier side mike kaplan did for audacy stations killed the fanbase for KROQ?

did ya know that 91x added Unknown Mortal Orchestra's That Life recently because the music director and the rest of the station agreed it's a damn good song? is that bad for them to do so because they didn't fully confined to the research?

If you think me advocating an artist like Yves Tumor who's on a successful tour, was a part of Coachella this year, is on the prestigious label Warp Records, gets a lot of college/public radio play since the late 10s, and is perfect for alternative radio commercially is just me subjecting personal taste? The way radio research has worked is so behind the times that the internet has been growing artists that alternative radio should've ages ago and now they're just started to play catchup. Alternative is supposed to be a music discovery type format isn't it? Maybe it would've continued if the industry and programmers weren't just appealing to Gen X'ers the whole time, doing classic alternative in the late 90s and early 00s already and shit lol

 

[PrezSquid]

the problem both with alternative and CHR come down to being that we as an industry have allowed corporate radio's spaghetti test control the charts.

gone are the days of programmers, except for mom and pop outlets, where the PD and or MD has a keen ear for what he or she knows will be a hit.
for CHR to just throw anything on air because tiktok says it's a trend is dangerous ground.

this too.

Plus the industry focusing on a social media app and not like, and not bothering seeing what music journalist sites, or bandcamp, or their local scene, etc for what could be successful is also stupid lmao

 

[TheBigA]

analytics isn't always successful though,

The same could be said for the PD with a keen ear. I think you're overstating the role Kaplan played in KROQ. The audience was dropping for years while Kaplan was still at KYSR. The thing that killed KROQ was the end of Kevin & The Bean. Once that show was gone, there was no reason to listen anymore.

Remember that music is available anywhere. People don't need radio stations to hear their favorites. So the main attraction is the talent. If that doesn't work, then all that's left is the music. And because there's no consensus on the music, the audience goes away.

The way radio research has worked is so behind the times that the internet has been growing artists that alternative radio should've ages ago and now they're just started to play catchup.

Which is why record labels also do research. Radio is not in the music business. Record labels and artists need to be driving the research, but they're too cheap and lazy. Plus they don't' know what makes a hit any more than anyone else. That's why they sign l artists who never have hits.

 

[PrezSquid]

The same could be said for the PD with a keen ear. I think you're overstating the role Kaplan played in KROQ. The audience was dropping for years while Kaplan was still at KYSR. The thing that killed KROQ was the end of Kevin & The Bean. Once that show was gone, there was no reason to listen anymore.

Remember that music is available anywhere. People don't need radio stations to hear their favorites. So the main attraction is the talent. If that doesn't work, then all that's left is the music. And because there's no consensus on the music, the audience goes away.



Which is why record labels also do research. Radio is not in the music business. Record labels and artists need to be driving the research, but they're too cheap and lazy. Plus they don't' know what makes a hit any more than anyone else. That's why they sign l artists who never have hits.

most people i know who listen or listened to the radio usually find the morning show talents to be the worst part of the day, if a radio stations purpose isn't music AND talent, then what are we doing here.

 

[TheBigA]

most people i know who listen or listened to the radio usually find the morning show talents to be the worst part of the day, if a radio stations purpose isn't music AND talent, then what are we doing here.

The goal is to make money. If alternative doesn't make money, flip the format to something that does. That's how radio works.

The people you know only care about their favorite bands. They go where they can hear what they like. Radio can't depend on people like that, because music taste is personal and individual, and radio is a mass medium. Radio does what a lot of people like, and that can be anything, including sports or talk.

 

[tall_guy1]

The goal is to make money. If alternative doesn't make money, flip the format to something that does. That's how radio works.

The people you know only care about their favorite bands. They go where they can hear what they like. Radio can't depend on people like that, because music taste is personal and individual, and radio is a mass medium. Radio does what a lot of people like, and that can be anything, including sports or talk.

The format is not "dead" though otherwise no major market would still carry it, and KITS would not have tried it again.

 

[davideduardo]

The lack of consensus is what makes both CHR/Top 40 and Alternative either amazing formats or terrible ones. It's baked into how both formats are designed because of how reliant they are on variety. Two sides of the same coin.

The problem with your statement is that you are defining "variety" with a strictly dictionary version.

Listeners who say they like a station because of its variety really mean "they play a bunch of songs I like and don't play songs I don't like". That "variety" at any given moment might be 30 songs or 50 songs, but not "a whole lot of songs" and, particularly, not "a bunch of songs I have never heard before.

After doing hundreds of one-on-one (my preference over focus groups) sessions involving formats ranging from rock and oldies to regional Mexican has shown that what a listener generally wants is a small set of their favorite songs and not a huge library of different songs.

 

[tall_guy1]

the problem both with alternative and CHR come down to being that we as an industry have allowed corporate radio's spaghetti test control the charts.

gone are the days of programmers, except for mom and pop outlets, where the PD and or MD has a keen ear for what he or she knows will be a hit.
for CHR to just throw anything on air because tiktok says it's a trend is dangerous ground.

It goes beyond that though. A lot of music is stalling, so it seems the record industry is sending a lot of music that does not catch on with listeners, outside of a few big songs on CHR.

 

[tall_guy1]

Let me repeat: You need to have a basis for adding a song. The concept of a " PD with a keen ear" is total malarky. That's not a basis of anything. That's personal taste. That's college radio. In the real world, the music business is supposed to do its own research in support of it's music and artists. That's what we get in other genres. We have trade magazines where we can see this information. But alternative people don't like corporate radio and they also don't like corporate music business. When you demonize the entire process, there's no basis anymore. This is why music that should be heard on alternative radio is being pitched to other formats where there is support and infrastructure to get the music heard and played. Where this isn't this negativity about corporate this or that. And when people work together, the music gets heard, and the artists have careers.

To be fair, that is the listener portion of this site. It is fair for them to have some critiques of culling and cutting alt stations. It is not like fans of a TV show that gets cancelled says "Ah, well. It was a good business decision on the part of ABC/NBC/whatever. The show was not profitable enough, so they got rid of it. I wish that company well!" And some cancellation critiques on the TV side I think did have merit, as broadcast TV has really taken a nosedive in viewers, and some "cult favorites" they got rid of last decade might have been better off for the companies bottom line than the fate they met, which might be true for radio when people leave this site and totally shrug about radio. TV stations these days stick with cult favorites, but now it is too late.

 

[davideduardo]

analytics isn't always successful though, why do you think the alt-poppier side mike kaplan did for audacy stations killed the fanbase for KROQ?

"Analytics", by which I presume you mean "research" only gives you insight into listener tastes and depends on what and how they research is done.

The best and most experienced market researcher in the U.S. and likely in the world is Proctor & Gamble. They test extensively every new product and then do test marketing before a full rollout. Yet around 50% of their new products never make it beyond the second year.

Oh, and KROQ fanbase was thoroughly "killed" before Kaplan arrived. The new competitor, simply, took most of the available alternative rock audience as they did better whatever listeners to that genre were seeking.

did ya know that 91x added Unknown Mortal Orchestra's That Life recently because the music director and the rest of the station agreed it's a damn good song? is that bad for them to do so because they didn't fully confined to the research?

Stations don't use research to add songs. You can't research songs unless the person being questioned has heard the song somewhere between 5 and 7 times, which means that a station has to play the song around 120 times before the P1 listeners can be asked about it.

If you think me advocating an artist like Yves Tumor who's on a successful tour, was a part of Coachella this year, is on the prestigious label Warp Records, gets a lot of college/public radio play since the late 10s, and is perfect for alternative radio commercially is just me subjecting personal taste?

Yes. Stations don't select artists, they select individual songs to play. Every artist can have good, bad and mediocre songs, and it is up to the station to find out which, if any, are playable.

Hint: Coachella is hardly an alternative venue any longer, unless you think that Bad Bunny does alt rock.

The way radio research has worked is so behind the times that the internet has been growing artists that alternative radio should've ages ago and now they're just started to play catchup.

Radio research, like all research in music, tries to find out to what extent people like or dislike each song. Many of the internet services give people the opportunity to skip songs or select only the ones they like. Radio does not do that, so there is the need to know about each song as well as about the total blend, presentation and style of the station.

Alternative is supposed to be a music discovery type format isn't it?

No, it is supposed to be a format that attracts enough listeners in the right demographic categories to make it desirable for advertisers. Radio is in the advertising business, not the music business. Using an analogy, a home builder is not in the brick business but they may use bricks to build a home... and before doing so they look at what kinds of bricks make a home more salable.

Maybe it would've continued if the industry and programmers weren't just appealing to Gen X'ers the whole time, doing classic alternative in the late 90s and early 00s already and crap lol

The reason why they do not play current music, as I have already stated many times, is that every alternative rock test I have seen as well as ones other research companies I know have done show that more current alternative has relatively fewer broad appeal songs and the rest are highly fragmented, with different groups on each song either hating, indifferent or loving each song. So most of the new stuff is poisonous to a one-for-many medium.

 

[davideduardo]

It goes beyond that though. A lot of music is stalling, so it seems the record industry is sending a lot of music that does not catch on with listeners, outside of a few big songs on CHR.

It's not that the songs are "stalling" but that, as I have now said about 257 times, most new alternative releases are polarizing and not mass appeal. They have positive "I love it" appeal to some, "It's OK I guess" to others and "that's awful" to still others. So those songs are never huge hits, but do have small appeal group... they sell enough for the label to be profitable, and some people stream them but they don't become massive radio hits.

 

[tall_guy1]

It's not that the songs are "stalling" but that, as I have now said about 257 times, most new alternative releases are polarizing and not mass appeal. They have positive "I love it" appeal to some, "It's OK I guess" to others and "that's awful" to still others. So those songs are never huge hits, but do have small appeal group... they sell enough for the label to be profitable, and some people stream them but they don't become massive radio hits.

I was actually referring to CHR where a lot of songs do stall, but yes, I could see how alternative could be a wide net since its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. It does seem like KRBZ (an Audacy station in town) plays a good amount of new alternative though, so it possibly could be done and the songs don't seem overly different from one another. From my view there is not a lack of new alternative on the radio, but some markets might play it safer yet.

 

[davideduardo]

I was actually referring to CHR where a lot of songs do stall, but yes, I could see how alternative could be a wide net since its meaning is somewhat ambiguous.

Excellent observation.

And the same happens in CHR. If you look at the data on CHR songs, other than the very top songs most of the Top 100 list has far fewer impressions and most of those songs never get broad radio play.

Back about a half a century, a very successful consultant insisted that there were never more than about 17 true hits at any given moment. Sure, you played five or six new songs until you could test them, and you knew there were some tunes that never got much on-line activity (or product sales in the past) but which fit the station and were enjoyable as part of the overall sound of the station.

Fewer PDs than you might think ever understand that one thing is each song but the real success of a station is in how the "good ones" are played together for flow, perceived variety, the right repetition frequency, consistency in tempos and styles and the like.,

It does seem like KRBZ (an Audacy station in town) plays a good amount of new alternative though, so it possibly could be done and the songs don't seem overly different from one another. From my view there is not a lack of new alternative on the radio, but some markets might play it safer yet.

Remember, a lot depends on the influence of ethnic groups on the feel of a market. Miami is very rhythmic because in 18-49 the market is about 60% Hispanic and near 20% Black... so you have 4 out of every 5 listeners generally favoring rhythmic songs and thus affecting what is played in street festivals, clubs and even in stores and public places.

The market "feel" will be different in Kansas City or Fargo, for sure.

 

[TheBigA]

The format is not "dead" though otherwise no major market would still carry it, and KITS would not have tried it again.

It depends what you consider the 'format' to be. What we're seeing is pretty consistent around the country.

To be fair, that is the listener portion of this site. It is fair for them to have some critiques of culling and cutting alt stations.

People create their own mythology about what they think radio is. Sometimes the reality doesn't fit the mythology. If radio is missing certain music, it's up to the people who represent the music to make their case.

 

[tall_guy1]

It depends what you consider the 'format' to be. What we're seeing is pretty consistent around the country.



People create their own mythology about what they think radio is. Sometimes the reality doesn't fit the mythology. If radio is missing certain music, it's up to the people who represent the music to make their case.

It is different for each market, but companies haven't thrown in the towel completely for the format, at least yet. Stations probably mainly adjust format for any kind of competition so its more about retaining listeners as long as they can.

 

[PrezSquid]

The goal is to make money. If alternative doesn't make money, flip the format to something that does. That's how radio works.

If alternative didn't exist as a format, I wouldn't even be into radio lol. I like top 40, hip hop, classics here and there, but as formats i'm not interested in them much, and classic stations are doo doo poo poo caca

 

[PrezSquid]

Hint: Coachella is hardly an alternative venue any longer, unless you think that Bad Bunny does alt rock.

No because I'm not a moron, but I can still name 10-15 artists in this year's that count as alternative.

 

[PrezSquid]

No because I'm not a moron, but I can still name 10-15 artists in this year's that count as alternative.

its like the rest of the coachella audience just look at the 3 headliners than assume the rest is pop garbage, which is an insult to not only pop artists but alternative artists and small bands in the chart that are trying to keep that spirit alive.