• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

To continue the WAMS post.

K

KlassikKountry

Guest
The WAMS post was too long, but I had a response to the poster that said why listen to WAMS when you have OGL. I understand where you are coming from but... The main reason I would listen to WAMS is when OGL is playing Sugar Pie Honey for the zillionth time, WAMS is playing El Paso, when OGL is playing, My Girl for the billionth time, WAMS is playing Speedy Gonzales, OGL = Baby Love today WAMS = Psycotic Reaction, have not heard that one in ages, they are a step behind WMID which is god. I think you catch my drift. Its the music that matters in my twisted world that PD's cannot understand. I find myself tuning in to the signal of WAMS, when YSP is yakking and its refreshing. I never listened to OGL since its birth, I know where they are coming from, they are a far throw from Diamond Jims masterpiece called WCAU-FM. I just scan them once and awile to see if anything is fresh, but you know its the "Same Old Song", over and over.
 
I couldn't have said it better. I've had WAMS on most of the weekend and truly enjoyed hearing songs that I've not heard, in some cases possibly 30+ years. A great mix of music from the 50's, 60's, and a sprinkling of the 70's.

> The WAMS post was too long, but I had a response to the
> poster that said why listen to WAMS when you have OGL. I
> understand where you are coming from but... The main reason
> I would listen to WAMS is when OGL is playing Sugar Pie
> Honey for the zillionth time, WAMS is playing El Paso, when
> OGL is playing, My Girl for the billionth time, WAMS is
> playing Speedy Gonzales, OGL = Baby Love today WAMS =
> Psycotic Reaction, have not heard that one in ages, they are
> a step behind WMID which is god. I think you catch my
> drift. Its the music that matters in my twisted world that
> PD's cannot understand. I find myself tuning in to the
> signal of WAMS, when YSP is yakking and its refreshing. I
> never listened to OGL since its birth, I know where they are
> coming from, they are a far throw from Diamond Jims
> masterpiece called WCAU-FM. I just scan them once and awile
> to see if anything is fresh, but you know its the "Same Old
> Song", over and over.
>
 
To go back to the WAMS post

You had to respond? But your response was just TOO IMPORTANT for the original thread. Hmmm. A little full of ourselves today, aren't we?

You've never listened to OGL but you know exactly what they are playing (and how many times they've played it)? Sorry, I just can't take you seriously and you don't know what you're talking about.
 
El Paso? Speedy Gonzalez? Psychotic Reaction? There's a reason why most stations don't play these -- they're not that good. If I'm Joe or Jane Average person I'd much rather hear Baby Love than Speedy Gonzalez, and I'd much rather hear I Can't Help Myself than Psychotic Reaction. And El Paso only tests well with people over 60. OGL, or any other station that depends on ratings, would be foolish to play those songs. WAMS can play 'em, because it's not a real station.
 
That is just the point I am making, why would anyone want to hear those burnt out songs over and over and over again. The songs I mentioned are refreshing and sound great, especially, since they were never played on an oldies station in Philly since WCAU-FM in the early 70's. Who said oldies stations have to play the same 200 test well Motown tunes constantly. The posters here always state that Jerry B. is great because he plays those obscure dance tracks but in the same sentence you trash the music I posted, which tested top 10 in their era.
 
Re: To go back to the WAMS post

> You had to respond? But your response was just TOO> IMPORTANT for the original thread. Hmmm. A little full of> ourselves today, aren't we?> > You've never listened to OGL but you know exactly what they> are playing (and how many times they've played it)? Sorry,> I just can't take you seriously and you don't know what> you're talking about.> The only reason I started a new post is so people don't have to sift through the original one, I did it out of respect not arrogance. If you read my post I said I just skim by OGL every now and then to see if they play anything else beside Motown.
 
The thing is, those songs are likely burnt out for radio programmers, the jocks that play them on the air and radio fans who post on radio internet message boards...in other words, those songs are burnt out for people who include radio as a major part of their lives which happens to be a very small minority of the listening audience. Those songs are not burnt out with the typical radio listening audience whose lives don't revolve around radio, but who happen to be the ones that generate ratings for radio stations. There's only one reason why oldies stations (or most any other format) plays the same well-tested 200 songs, and that's because it generates ratings. If playing a thousand or more song playlist generated ratings, radio would already be doing it.


> That is just the point I am making, why would anyone want to
> hear those burnt out songs over and over and over again.
> The songs I mentioned are refreshing and sound great,
> especially, since they were never played on an oldies
> station in Philly since WCAU-FM in the early 70's. Who said
> oldies stations have to play the same 200 test well Motown
> tunes constantly. The posters here always state that Jerry
> B. is great because he plays those obscure dance tracks but
> in the same sentence you trash the music I posted, which
> tested top 10 in their era.
>
 
Why The Music Died

Who said Oldies stations have to play the same 200 test well Motown
tunes constantly?

Well, the listeners. That's why WOGL is #6 in Philly (breaking a four share) and #7 in Wilmington (above a three share). Songs test well because those are the songs people say they like. People want to hear what they like and they want to hear what they like over and over again. Todd Storz discovered that in the early 50's and it has worked ever since.

Other principles:
Some songs hold up well over time. Some (although popular back in the day) just do not wear well.
Musical tastes get imprinted at period of life roughly running from Middle School to Settling Down and Starting a Family. To get a given age segment to listen, play music from that period in their lives.
Ad agencies now want to reach people whose musical tastes were shaped in the 70's and 80's (not the 50's and 60's).
Oldies is no longer a format. It is a brand positioning, one which is no longer desirable. The trick now is to play "Oldies" without being perceived as an Oldies station (the operative word here being "old"). Hence we Sunny and Ben/Jack, which do this very well.

What some people on this board seem to want from WAMS (and hoped for at one time from WPEN)was not just the music they grew up with, but radio they grew up with. Their recollections of radio they grew up with unfortunately are recalled through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia. Air checks are available online (check Reel Audio) but don't listen unless you are willing to be disappointed. It's not something most people would be willing to listen to today (even those who speak fondly of long-ago AM Top 40 radio).
 
Re: Why The Music Died

You make a very important point. It is not just the music us oldies fans want, its the radio at the peak of AM Top 40.

We enjoyed the total sound. But at the same time we have to remember that we were in our teens. What sounded good when we were 13-18 does NOT sound good when we are 43-48. The motor-mouth type dj's that KB and many of the oldies channels use have a high burn out factor. Higher in fact, than the music!

To say that El Paso and Pat Boone material was big in its era, is a fact. "Drinking Rum and Coca-Cola" was big in its era. Glen Miller was big in his era. But I'm sure not going to play Stonewall Jackson's Waterloo followed by Miller's In the Mood followed by Honky Tonk Woman. The listeners are in a new era. Radio has to catch up.

> Who said Oldies stations have to play the same 200 test well
> Motown
> tunes constantly?
>
> Well, the listeners. That's why WOGL is #6 in Philly
> (breaking a four share) and #7 in Wilmington (above a three
> share). Songs test well because those are the songs people
> say they like. People want to hear what they like and they
> want to hear what they like over and over again. Todd Storz
> discovered that in the early 50's and it has worked ever
> since.
>
> Other principles:
> Some songs hold up well over time. Some (although popular
> back in the day) just do not wear well.
> Musical tastes get imprinted at period of life roughly
> running from Middle School to Settling Down and Starting a
> Family. To get a given age segment to listen, play music
> from that period in their lives.
> Ad agencies now want to reach people whose musical tastes
> were shaped in the 70's and 80's (not the 50's and 60's).
> Oldies is no longer a format. It is a brand positioning,
> one which is no longer desirable. The trick now is to play
> "Oldies" without being perceived as an Oldies station (the
> operative word here being "old"). Hence we Sunny and
> Ben/Jack, which do this very well.
>
> What some people on this board seem to want from WAMS (and
> hoped for at one time from WPEN)was not just the music they
> grew up with, but radio they grew up with. Their
> recollections of radio they grew up with unfortunately are
> recalled through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia. Air
> checks are available online (check Reel Audio) but don't
> listen unless you are willing to be disappointed. It's not
> something most people would be willing to listen to today
> (even those who speak fondly of long-ago AM Top 40 radio).
>
 
To add to that...

Your post is dead on.

Here's another angle...why do people buy CDs, or download songs into their i-Pods or mp3 players? It's because they purchase music from artists they like or songs they like, and want to hear them again and again. If variety was a main selling point of music, people would never buy music because they would only have to hear a song once in order to be satisfied. Music would be disposable and there would be no way for artists to make money from it or radio stations to earn money by playing it. Certain songs stand the test of time simply because they make people want to hear them over and over again. Those are the songs that radio wants to play.

Radio music programming is similar to programming an i-Pod, except that instead of programming one person's i-Pod...they're programming one i-Pod for thousands of people. While the songs a radio station plays wouldn't be on every single i-Pod for their target audience, they're programming the very songs that a large part of their target audience would choose to put in their i-Pod and staying away from the songs that only a handful of their target audience would include in their i-Pod.

> Who said Oldies stations have to play the same 200 test well
> Motown
> tunes constantly?
>
> Well, the listeners. That's why WOGL is #6 in Philly
> (breaking a four share) and #7 in Wilmington (above a three
> share). Songs test well because those are the songs people
> say they like. People want to hear what they like and they
> want to hear what they like over and over again. Todd Storz
> discovered that in the early 50's and it has worked ever
> since.
>
> Other principles:
> Some songs hold up well over time. Some (although popular
> back in the day) just do not wear well.
> Musical tastes get imprinted at period of life roughly
> running from Middle School to Settling Down and Starting a
> Family. To get a given age segment to listen, play music
> from that period in their lives.
> Ad agencies now want to reach people whose musical tastes
> were shaped in the 70's and 80's (not the 50's and 60's).
> Oldies is no longer a format. It is a brand positioning,
> one which is no longer desirable. The trick now is to play
> "Oldies" without being perceived as an Oldies station (the
> operative word here being "old"). Hence we Sunny and
> Ben/Jack, which do this very well.
>
> What some people on this board seem to want from WAMS (and
> hoped for at one time from WPEN)was not just the music they
> grew up with, but radio they grew up with. Their
> recollections of radio they grew up with unfortunately are
> recalled through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia. Air
> checks are available online (check Reel Audio) but don't
> listen unless you are willing to be disappointed. It's not
> something most people would be willing to listen to today
> (even those who speak fondly of long-ago AM Top 40 radio).
>
 
IPODS, SATELLITE Because

You all answered the main question, why all the I-pods, why all the Satellite Radio subscriptions, why MC and DMX on the up. Simple, because the listener does not hear what they want on typical oldies formats, on most big time Oldies stations. I know many people who want to hear tunes that have not been heard in years. I cannot understand the problem with "oh wow" music, its all this test-well and familiar music constantly. How many times can one hear the same song, over and over, it is boring and a turn off. There was a time when you could listen to WCAU-FM and never know what song would come on next, which was exciting IMHO. Now its so predictable, that is why I would say WMID is one of those oldies stations that mixes it up and you never know whats coming on next. Isn't that a good thing, would it work here, sure would. WPEN could of been a clone of WMID and they would still be here today.
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

Yes the people who are using i-Pods or subscribing to satellite are the ones who aren't getting what they want from terrestrial radio, however terrestrial radio will go bankrupt if it tries to reach this audience, because there are so few of them in the market they serve. The simple reason is that terrestrial radio relies on advertising to turn a profit, therefore terrestrial radio has to reach as wide an audience as possible. Also, terrestrial radio is primarily a local advertising medium and because of that relies upon reaching a certain percentage of the potential audience reach of the station rather than a designated number of users (so a Philadelphia station needs to reach far more people than a station in Lancaster or Atlantic City does). The satellite radio business model isn't built on advertising, but is built on the number of subscribers they can get. A few million satellite radio subscribers looks like an impressive number until you realize that a few million is a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of people who live in the U.S. However, since satellite radio is built on the number of subscribers rather than a percentage of population, satellite radio can function quite well serving the audiophile market that is unprofitable for terrestrial radio to serve. It doesn't matter where satellite listeners are from or their demographics and it doesn't matter what percentage of the market they make up, all that matters is that they have enough subscribers to turn a profit.

By the way, oldies isn't on the way out because of the repetitive playlists of the stations or because listeners are getting bored with them, oldies is on the way out because the demographic for it is getting too old to be of interest of most advertisers. When oldies is gone, classic rock will be the next format to go.


> You all answered the main question, why all the I-pods, why
> all the Satellite Radio subscriptions, why MC and DMX on the
> up. Simple, because the listener does not hear what they
> want on typical oldies formats, on most big time Oldies
> stations. I know many people who want to hear tunes that
> have not been heard in years. I cannot understand the
> problem with "oh wow" music, its all this test-well and
> familiar music constantly. How many times can one hear the
> same song, over and over, it is boring and a turn off.
> There was a time when you could listen to WCAU-FM and never
> know what song would come on next, which was exciting IMHO.
> Now its so predictable, that is why I would say WMID is one
> of those oldies stations that mixes it up and you never know
> whats coming on next. Isn't that a good thing, would it
> work here, sure would. WPEN could of been a clone of WMID
> and they would still be here today.
>
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

Billboard and other trade mags have pointed out on more than one occasion that in cities with more than one oldies station, it is the station with the short playlist that wins the oldies battle. Remembr when Philly had 4 oldies stations? The shorter list station won the battle. And as we have discussed hundeds of times, the WPEN audio was the problem, not the playlist.

> You all answered the main question, why all the I-pods, why
> all the Satellite Radio subscriptions, why MC and DMX on the
> up. Simple, because the listener does not hear what they
> want on typical oldies formats, on most big time Oldies
> stations. I know many people who want to hear tunes that
> have not been heard in years. I cannot understand the
> problem with "oh wow" music, its all this test-well and
> familiar music constantly. How many times can one hear the
> same song, over and over, it is boring and a turn off.
> There was a time when you could listen to WCAU-FM and never
> know what song would come on next, which was exciting IMHO.
> Now its so predictable, that is why I would say WMID is one
> of those oldies stations that mixes it up and you never know
> whats coming on next. Isn't that a good thing, would it
> work here, sure would. WPEN could of been a clone of WMID
> and they would still be here today.
>
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

And another point. How many people are listening to each channel? Hundreds of channels and a few million subscribers. Doesn't add up to many listeners per offering.

And we are already hearing from disgruntled subscribers who paid to hear Howard only to find they can't hear much of his show because of dead zones.


> Yes the people who are using i-Pods or subscribing to
> satellite are the ones who aren't getting what they want
> from terrestrial radio, however terrestrial radio will go
> bankrupt if it tries to reach this audience, because there
> are so few of them in the market they serve. The simple
> reason is that terrestrial radio relies on advertising to
> turn a profit, therefore terrestrial radio has to reach as
> wide an audience as possible. Also, terrestrial radio is
> primarily a local advertising medium and because of that
> relies upon reaching a certain percentage of the potential
> audience reach of the station rather than a designated
> number of users (so a Philadelphia station needs to reach
> far more people than a station in Lancaster or Atlantic City
> does). The satellite radio business model isn't built on
> advertising, but is built on the number of subscribers they
> can get. A few million satellite radio subscribers looks
> like an impressive number until you realize that a few
> million is a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of
> people who live in the U.S. However, since satellite radio
> is built on the number of subscribers rather than a
> percentage of population, satellite radio can function quite
> well serving the audiophile market that is unprofitable for
> terrestrial radio to serve. It doesn't matter where
> satellite listeners are from or their demographics and it
> doesn't matter what percentage of the market they make up,
> all that matters is that they have enough subscribers to
> turn a profit.
>
> By the way, oldies isn't on the way out because of the
> repetitive playlists of the stations or because listeners
> are getting bored with them, oldies is on the way out
> because the demographic for it is getting too old to be of
> interest of most advertisers. When oldies is gone, classic
> rock will be the next format to go.
>
>
> > You all answered the main question, why all the I-pods,
> why
> > all the Satellite Radio subscriptions, why MC and DMX on
> the
> > up. Simple, because the listener does not hear what they
> > want on typical oldies formats, on most big time Oldies
> > stations. I know many people who want to hear tunes that
> > have not been heard in years. I cannot understand the
> > problem with "oh wow" music, its all this test-well and
> > familiar music constantly. How many times can one hear
> the
> > same song, over and over, it is boring and a turn off.
> > There was a time when you could listen to WCAU-FM and
> never
> > know what song would come on next, which was exciting
> IMHO.
> > Now its so predictable, that is why I would say WMID is
> one
> > of those oldies stations that mixes it up and you never
> know
> > whats coming on next. Isn't that a good thing, would it
> > work here, sure would. WPEN could of been a clone of WMID
>
> > and they would still be here today.
> >
>
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

> Billboard and other trade mags have pointed out on more thanwe have discussed hundeds of times, the WPEN audio was the problem, not the playlist.I have to disagree to a certain extent, I think the product overweighs the comfortable sound. Most listeners would embrace the music first, then suffer through the sound. Example, I would rather hear a broad variety of classic oldies on an AM signal, than the same 200 songs on a clearer stereo signal.Many people I know listen to KB with the drifts and dead spots to hear a better blend of music. Just my observations. Wouldn't you rather hear "oh wow" tunes on AM then the repititious ones on FM.
 
The difference is...

It's O.K. that you disagree with how commercial radio is programmed, but keep in mind you're not a typical listener. I have somewhat ecletic musical tastes myself, but because I'm in the business, I'm fully aware that any radio station that is targeting me as its audience is destined to be a failure.


> > Billboard and other trade mags have pointed out on more
> thanwe have discussed hundeds of times, the WPEN audio was
> the problem, not the playlist.I have to disagree to a
> certain extent, I think the product overweighs the
> comfortable sound. Most listeners would embrace the music
> first, then suffer through the sound. Example, I would
> rather hear a broad variety of classic oldies on an AM
> signal, than the same 200 songs on a clearer stereo
> signal.Many people I know listen to KB with the drifts and
> dead spots to hear a better blend of music. Just my
> observations. Wouldn't you rather hear "oh wow" tunes on AM
> then the repititious ones on FM.
>
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

When 900AM ran oldies for a while (around 2000?) I listened to them for the blend of oldies. I am also still in the progress of burning my oldies cd colletion onto cd's so I can hear the blend I like. Listening to WABC on Saturday night or KB is not a problem for me.

I will also listen to WAMD for oldies, although their mix is never consistant. Its not the AM which bothers me. It was the muddled sound of WPEN (and of coure, the weekends).

But only the dedicated oldies fan remembers the "real" oldies and the "Oh Wow" type. For you and me, it may bring back a lot of memories. But yesterday, when I heard "Sit Down I think I Love You" on WAMS, I doubt if any other possible listener had heard the song before.

Personally? I prefer a 2,500 song playlist. But when listeners start hearing too many unfamilar songs, they tune out. Thus, oldies stations play Motown and "Oh, Pretty Woman" over and over and over.

> > Billboard and other trade mags have pointed out on more
> thanwe have discussed hundeds of times, the WPEN audio was
> the problem, not the playlist.I have to disagree to a
> certain extent, I think the product overweighs the
> comfortable sound. Most listeners would embrace the music
> first, then suffer through the sound. Example, I would
> rather hear a broad variety of classic oldies on an AM
> signal, than the same 200 songs on a clearer stereo
> signal.Many people I know listen to KB with the drifts and
> dead spots to hear a better blend of music. Just my
> observations. Wouldn't you rather hear "oh wow" tunes on AM
> then the repititious ones on FM.
>
 
Re: IPODS, SATELLITE Because

> And we are already hearing from disgruntled subscribers who
> paid to hear Howard only to find they can't hear much of his
> show because of dead zones.
>
This is WAYY off the original thread, but I should point out that I've had a Sirius Plug N' Play unit for 13 months with terrific results. The only dead zones I've found are in the deepest woods and the east side of very steep hillsides (and that's with my antenna mounted on my car's trunk instead of my roof as recommended). If new Sirius users are having other reception problems then they don't have their antennas mounted even close to properly.
 
Sirius

> > And we are already hearing from disgruntled subscribers
> who
> > paid to hear Howard only to find they can't hear much of
> his
> > show because of dead zones.
> >
> This is WAYY off the original thread, but I should point out
> that I've had a Sirius Plug N' Play unit for 13 months with
> terrific results. The only dead zones I've found are in the
> deepest woods and the east side of very steep hillsides (and
> that's with my antenna mounted on my car's trunk instead of
> my roof as recommended). If new Sirius users are having
> other reception problems then they don't have their antennas
> mounted even close to properly.

Just received a Sirius subscription as a Christmas gift. I have the unit you can take inside the house and plug into a stereo system (and don't have the antenna mounted on the car at all). I just lay the antenna on the dash and I've had no problems. But I seem to drive through this one spot all the time where there's a weak station broadcasting on 88.1. I get some interference for about a mile or two, then Sirius takes over. The instructions say to change the dial to another nearby frequency when that happens, but I then get nothing at all on 87.9 or 88.3.

Inside the house is a different story... loses the signal a lot, mostly during the daytime. Nighttime is much better.
 
Re: Sirius

> I seem to drive through this one spot all the
> time where there's a weak station broadcasting on 88.1. I
> get some interference for about a mile or two, then Sirius
> takes over. The instructions say to change the dial to
> another nearby frequency when that happens, but I then get
> nothing at all on 87.9 or 88.3.
>
> Inside the house is a different story... loses the signal a
> lot, mostly during the daytime. Nighttime is much better.
>
Welcome to satellite radio! A couple of things: 1) to change the FM station that the radio uses you must also change a setting on your unit -- you should have a menu button or something similar and a menu option for FM Settings that will allow you to pick another frequency besides the default 88.1. That way, you can change freqs whenever you're in an area with a local station on the freq you were using.
2) Make sure you are using a connection to an aux input on your home stereo, not the FM signal option, you'll get better and more reliable audio.
3) There ordinarily should be no difference between day and night reception in a stationary unit at home (the exception might be if you are close to an airport for reasons too detailed to explain without doing a lot of typing). The Sirius birds are moving, and there are three periods every 24 hours when the birds are low to the horizon and you MIGHT have probs, but those shouldn't be for more than a few minutes. Play a bit with your home antenna positioning.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom