True or False

[OldGringo]

Well Cat, as usual you have it all wrong. I'm 46 not fifty. I've never been rejected because
I've never applied for a DJ job, I couldn't afford the pay cut. I'm not desperate because unlike
you I am on the air and having fun. And it might be high school but i'ts one of the best if not
the best oldies stations in the U.S today.

One of the first definitions of "best" in radio has to do with having listeners.

Playing more obscure songs nobody wants to hear is not a definition of "best."

 

[MikeD2]

One of the first definitions of "best" in radio has to do with having listeners.

Playing more obscure songs nobody wants to hear is not a definition of "best."
[/quote]

And we do have listeners. Lots of them and slowly growing. Now mind you
never enough for me, but considering we have no promo budget, we do pretty
good with our guerilla efforts. Oh and I forgot our online listeners from around
the world.

We do play the odd obsure song but we also play lots of the well known stuff
too. Considering that between 1955 and 1972 the Billboard top 100 had somewhere
around 11,000 songs there's a lot to choose from, and the commercial oldies
stations play somewhere around 450. Tell me whats wrong with that picture.
We play a couple of thousand (sorry I have no idea what the exact figure
is) songs, and always adding to the list.
I suggest you give us a listen tomorrow, you just might like it.

Mike Dane
WSTB 88.9
9pm-12mid
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[OldiesCat]

False

"one of the best". Based on-- what, Mike? The fact they let you play 4 hours a week?

I've always been amused the way you toss around the term "wannabe"-- many of us you deride have been real, commercial, competitive, SUCCESSFUL radio for decades and the best you can do is a weekend gig on a High School station?

Get real, humpy.

 

[TheFonz]

One of the first definitions of "best" in radio has to do with having listeners.

Playing more obscure songs nobody wants to hear is not a definition of "best."

So then, McDonalds has the best hamburgers because more people eat them?

 

[OldGringo]

One of the first definitions of "best" in radio has to do with having listeners.

Playing more obscure songs nobody wants to hear is not a definition of "best."

So then, McDonalds has the best hamburgers because more people eat them?

Absolutely, in the context of business. Radio is a business, and the metrics are NOT artistic but based on money, earnings, ROI, EBITDA, etc.

 

[OldGringo]

And we do have listeners. Lots of them and slowly growing. Now mind you
never enough for me, but considering we have no promo budget, we do pretty
good with our guerilla efforts. Oh and I forgot our online listeners from around
the world.

The station is about 30th in the market... out of about 30.

How many streams do you have at any one time?

We do play the odd obsure song but we also play lots of the well known stuff
too. Considering that between 1955 and 1972 the Billboard top 100 had somewhere
around 11,000 songs there's a lot to choose from, and the commercial oldies
stations play somewhere around 450.

That is because most of the rest of the songs are not well received by listeners today. First, the charts in the 60's were very subject to hype and worse... and to make top 100 was relatively easy.

The real issue is that at least 9 out of every 10 of those 11,000 songs has no postitive reason to ever be played again, even on a specialty show. They are... and were... stiffs.

Tell me whats wrong with that picture.

Everything. It is bad radio where more songs is an excuse to cover up the fact most of those songs have neither interest nor relevance today. They are just bad songs to today's listeners.

We play a couple of thousand (sorry I have no idea what the exact figure
is) songs, and always adding to the list.

I have competed with people who thought more was better. So have many of my friends and associates. We always won, so we welcome such clueless copetitors. Like shooting fish in a barre

.
I suggest you give us a listen tomorrow, you just might like it.

I can think of about 10,000 reasons why I would not like it. Like most listeners, I enjoy familiar songs that I like, not obscure stiffs from 40 years ago.

 

[MikeD2]

Re: False

"one of the best". Based on-- what, Mike? The fact they let you play 4 hours a week?

I've always been amused the way you toss around the term "wannabe"-- many of us you deride have been real, commercial, competitive, SUCCESSFUL radio for decades and the best you can do is a weekend gig on a High School station?

Get real, humpy.

Well Cat, I call them as I see them which I know ticks off some of the people around here. Our station isn't the best
because of me. I'm just one of the DJ's. We're the best because of the music. There's probably only a handful of
radio stations that play as wide a selection as we do, I don't think even XM and Sirius have as good a playlist unless
you're listening to Norm N. Nite's show on Sirus.

As for calling you a Wannabe, Well if the shoe fits and all that. Prove to me what you claim and I will be happy to
tell everybody in the forum that I was wrong. I can prove I'm on the air any sunday night, just listen in.
And as far as I'm concerned that pretty much goes for anyone here who gives me the "I've been in radio for 30
years and I know everything and am the greatest" bullcrap. If you're going to talk the talk you better be able to
prove that you've walked the walk. Off hand I can think of only one other person here that isn't afraid to hide
behind a Pseudo, and thats David Eduardo. I may not agree with him but I have some respect for him since he's
upfront about who he is.

So I suggest you get real humpy.

Oh and by the way, it's 3 hours, get some help with your math.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
9pm-12mid Sundays
WWW.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeD2]

The station is about 30th in the market... out of about 30.

How many streams do you have at any one time?

Well I don't get to see much from arbitron other than the stuff available
from all access, but we are not in last place. I know that much.
As for the streams, it varies. We pay for 25 and during my show it can go from
the full 25 to about 2 around 11:30 pm.
And speaking of Arbitron, it's going to be interesting to see them now that the
commercials and non-commercials are going to be in the same book along with
other means of "broadcasting".

That is because most of the rest of the songs are not well received by listeners today. First, the charts in the 60's were very subject to hype and worse... and to make top 100 was relatively easy.

The real issue is that at least 9 out of every 10 of those 11,000 songs has no postitive reason to ever be played again, even on a specialty show. They are... and were... stiffs.

You're going to try and say with a straight face that of 11,000 songs 10,000 are stiffs? What a load of BS. The positive reason to play
these songs it to entertain, to bring back memories of the early days of our listeners life. Their first kiss, sitting in the back seat, their
first dance. To bring back that good feeling and there are more than just 1,000 songs that do that. People like you OG wouldn't know
a stiff if you were standing in Duckie's morgue.

Everything. It is bad radio where more songs is an excuse to cover up the fact most of those songs have neither interest nor relevance today. They are just bad songs to today's listeners.

You're right, Everything is wrong with that picture of 450 songs. That is why a larger playlist is needed. Now granted not every song
is going to be a hit with everyone. Some will be a hit with a large portion and some with a smaller portion. The idea is to use the less
popular songs to space out the more popular songs so the listeners don't burn out on the safe 450. Throw in some songs from the
bubbling under and some that didn't even chart but were/are good songs for the wow factor and you're cooking.

I have competed with people who thought more was better. So have many of my friends and associates. We always won, so we welcome such clueless copetitors. Like shooting fish in a barre

Two things come to mind here. First you can't just indiscriminately add songs. You have to select each one properly for addition to
the playlist.
Second, I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell Cat. Prove it.

I can think of about 10,000 reasons why I would not like it. Like most listeners, I enjoy familiar songs that I like, not obscure stiffs from 40 years ago.

Typical closed mind. Thats why radio is in trouble today. It's going to be interesting to see where "terestrial" radio is in 10 years
with this kind of thinking.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
9pm-12mid sundays
WWW.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Just about any song that "bubbled under" the Hot 100 in the 60s is not a song I care to hear or would even remember. Puh-leeze now I agree that songs that made the Top 10 and a few that made it to the Top 20 might be a decent listen. But playing stiffs (and David is correct about stiffs) that NO ONE remembers unless they were the artist or a relative is not going to mean you are the best.

Here's an example of two songs I don't mind hearing maybe once every few years.... "Roses and Rainbows" and "The Eggplant that ate Chicago". Neither made the Top 40 (Billboard) but may have made the Top 100. If that is true and they weren't just "bubbling under" the Top 100, just think of the typical oldies junkie who may not remember even these two songs. Do ya think anyone would want to hear a song that peaked at #108??

As to your assertion about 11,000 songs between 1955 and 1972, consider this...
Most year-end Top 100s of the day included mostly songs which made the Top 10 and some which peaked at between #11 and #20. 18 years x 100 songs = 1,800 songs that few people will remember all of them. That leaves over 9,000 songs and few will remember any of them so no "Wow" factor there, Mike.

 

[OldiesCat]

and therein lies the problem

"one of the best". Based on-- what, Mike? The fact they let you play 4 hours a week?

I've always been amused the way you toss around the term "wannabe"-- many of us you deride have been real, commercial, competitive, SUCCESSFUL radio for decades and the best you can do is a weekend gig on a High School station?

Get real, humpy.

Well Cat, I call them as I see them which I know ticks off some of the people around here. Our station isn't the best
because of me. I'm just one of the DJ's. We're the best because of the music. There's probably only a handful of
radio stations that play as wide a selection as we do, I don't think even XM and Sirius have as good a playlist unless
you're listening to Norm N. Nite's show on Sirus.

As for calling you a Wannabe, Well if the shoe fits and all that. Prove to me what you claim and I will be happy to
tell everybody in the forum that I was wrong. I can prove I'm on the air any sunday night, just listen in.
And as far as I'm concerned that pretty much goes for anyone here who gives me the "I've been in radio for 30
years and I know everything and am the greatest" bullcrap. If you're going to talk the talk you better be able to
prove that you've walked the walk. Off hand I can think of only one other person here that isn't afraid to hide
behind a Pseudo, and thats David Eduardo. I may not agree with him but I have some respect for him since he's
upfront about who he is.

So I suggest you get real humpy.

Oh and by the way, it's 3 hours, get some help with your math.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
9pm-12mid Sundays
WWW.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

And therein lines the problem- "I call them the way I see them". It's your perspective that's skewed and unreal. Man, you just "play radio"- you don't participate in the way radio operates, you don't really contribute to real radio in 2006. All you do is piss & moan that radio isnt' done the way you'd do it. And, we in radio are thankful we don't do radio the way you do it.

Look, it's fine if you want to play 3 hours a week as your hobby. God Bless and knock yourself out. But please don't keep trying to tell us we're all full of crap about how real radio should work from a high school radio hobby perspective.

 

[MikeD2]

Just about any song that "bubbled under" the Hot 100 in the 60s is not a song I care to hear or would even remember. Puh-leeze now I agree that songs that made the Top 10 and a few that made it to the Top 20 might be a decent listen. But playing stiffs (and David is correct about stiffs) that NO ONE remembers unless they were the artist or a relative is not going to mean you are the best.

Well you've just shown me your mind is closed on the subject.
There are plenty of good songs that only bubbled under and some that didn't even hit the charts, for what ever
reason. It coulld be because they were blocked by a payola record, bad distribution, small label or what ever, but
there are some out there, you just have to look.
From what I've seen, David is fine for running station, but I wouldn't let him pick music. Like I said before, he wouldn't
know a stiff if he was in Duckie's morgue.

Here's an example of two songs I don't mind hearing maybe once every few years.... "Roses and Rainbows" and "The Eggplant that ate Chicago". Neither made the Top 40 (Billboard) but may have made the Top 100. If that is true and they weren't just "bubbling under" the Top 100, just think of the typical oldies junkie who may not remember even these two songs. Do ya think anyone would want to hear a song that peaked at #108??

Both made the top 100. "Roses and Rainbows" I don't like and would not be on my playlist, but being as Glenn Beck says
"a sick twisted freak" I do like the "Eggplant that ate Chicago" and it would be on my list. Although played sparingly.
Yes people will listen to a song that peaked at #108, if it's a good song. I have not now nor have I ever advocated
just playing all 11,000 songs plus the bubbling unders. Each song has to be listened to and of course if it's a
stinker you don't use it. But that still leaves you plenty of songs. One example I like is "Too Bad For You" by Sunny Gale.
It came out around January of '64 and WKNR Detroit played it. Unfortunatly not to much later the Beatles came along
turned the music world upside down. Bottom line Each song has to be judged.

As to your assertion about 11,000 songs between 1955 and 1972, consider this...
Most year-end Top 100s of the day included mostly songs which made the Top 10 and some which peaked at between #11 and #20. 18 years x 100 songs = 1,800 songs that few people will remember all of them. That leaves over 9,000 songs and few will remember any of them so no "Wow" factor there, Mike.

1,800 songs? and the commercial stations only play 450? see the problem? But truthfully there are more than that. You just
don't see it, or should I say you refuse to hear it.
The "WOW" factor comes from playing a song that either brings back a nice memory that hasn't been heard in a long time,
or a good song they may never have heard. The possiblities ane not endles but they are vast and it's better to be vast
than half vast.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
9Pm-12Mid Sundays
WWW.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeD2]

Re: and therein lies the problem

And therein lines the problem- "I call them the way I see them". It's your perspective that's skewed and unreal. Man, you just "play radio"- you don't participate in the way radio operates, you don't really contribute to real radio in 2006. All you do is piss & moan that radio isnt' done the way you'd do it. And, we in radio are thankful we don't do radio the way you do it.

Actually my perspective is less skewed than the majority of people here that are in the business. I am not beholden
to any station/company for a paycheck so I can speak freely. I am more of an outsider than an insider, but I do have
a foot inside as well. In other words my view is more of a listener and fan than an insider but I do know whats going on.
Yes I "play radio" just like Troy Polamalu "plays footbal". I do what I do for the sheer love of the music and radio.
I don't participate in the way commercial radio operates, but I do to radio in general and non-commercial radio in paticular.
And I have been contributing and participating in real radio since 1999. Granted not as long as some of my friends, but
still several years.
Yes I "piss & moan" as you put it about radio today. Not about the way I would do it, but that we have gotten away
from good radio. The consolidation and "corporitization" of radio has ruined radio and I believe eventually doomed it.
And I give thanks everyday that I don't do radio the way corporates do.

Look, it's fine if you want to play 3 hours a week as your hobby. God Bless and knock yourself out. But please don't keep trying to tell us we're all full of crap about how real radio should work from a high school radio hobby perspective.

I might play but it's no hobby and it's more than 3 hours. Or haven't you heard of show prep? of course you would have
ir you were in the business. My hobby (one of many) is collecting music and I use that in my work on Sunday, and it's
one of the reasons I complain about the state of oldies radio today. I know that there is more that just 450 songs out
there that are good.
If you're full of crap, I'm going to tell you you're full of crap. Don't like it tuff. I don't tell you you're full of it because
of how I think radio should be run, but because commercial radio today sucks, and I think we need to go back to
good radio. Which of course will mean less coporate (yes reinstitute the caps) and maybe a little more fun. That is one
of the things I like about the Jukebox. It's fun radio.

Oh and don't give me the "we" line. When you can prove it talk to me about "we"

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
9pm-12mid Sundays
www.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[OldGringo]

Well I don't get to see much from arbitron other than the stuff available
from all access, but we are not in last place. I know that much.
As for the streams, it varies. We pay for 25 and during my show it can go from
the full 25 to about 2 around 11:30 pm.

25? And you talk about a world wide audience... with 25 streams. As an example, the #1 station in AM drive in LA has, at any one time, 200,000 listeners.

And speaking of Arbitron, it's going to be interesting to see them now that the
commercials and non-commercials are going to be in the same book along with
other means of "broadcasting".

The data "real" stations use, Maximiser, has had the data on non-coms for over a decade. Yawn. And satellite does not have neough audience to even show, nor does any audios stream.

That is because most of the rest of the songs are not well received by listeners today. First, the charts in the 60's were very subject to hype and worse... and to make top 100 was relatively easy.

The real issue is that at least 9 out of every 10 of those 11,000 songs has no postitive reason to ever be played again, even on a specialty show. They are... and were... stiffs.

You're going to try and say with a straight face that of 11,000 songs 10,000 are stiffs? What a load of BS. The positive reason to play
these songs it to entertain, to bring back memories of the early days of our listeners life. Their first kiss, sitting in the back seat, their
first dance. To bring back that good feeling and there are more than just 1,000 songs that do that. People like you OG wouldn't know
a stiff if you were standing in Duckie's morgue.

Yes, today, most old songs are stiffs. Many big hits of yesterday are violently hated today. We are running stations for today, not 1962.

Everything. It is bad radio where more songs is an excuse to cover up the fact most of those songs have neither interest nor relevance today. They are just bad songs to today's listeners.

You're right, Everything is wrong with that picture of 450 songs. That is why a larger playlist is needed. Now granted not every song
is going to be a hit with everyone. Some will be a hit with a large portion and some with a smaller portion. The idea is to use the less
popular songs to space out the more popular songs so the listeners don't burn out on the safe 450. Throw in some songs from the
bubbling under and some that didn't even chart but were/are good songs for the wow factor and you're cooking.

I do the Spanish equivalent of oldies, with a slightly deeper library. We have a competitor in 5 markets that has double the library. We beath them horribly in each place. The reason we beat them is that there are not 1500 or 2000 hits in any format. And the more songs over the "real hits" you play decreases TSL and finally makes the station unlistenable.

I have competed with people who thought more was better. So have many of my friends and associates. We always won, so we welcome such clueless copetitors. Like shooting fish in a barre

Two things come to mind here. First you can't just indiscriminately add songs. You have to select each one properly for addition to
the playlist.

I am sorry, but this is foolish. I do not select songs. The listeners do, and they don't want to hear 2000 songs (yes, we have testeed nearly 4,000 tititles) because there are not 2000 old songs that people TODAY want to hear.

Second, I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell Cat. Prove it.

Sure. KLNO vs. KEGL in Dallas. KLQV vs. XOCL in San Diego. KBRG vs. KFSO in San Francisco.... etc. The smaller library of good, tested songs with mass appeal today wins. KLNO, in less than 3 books, took KEGL form #2 to #19, while KLNO is not #3 25-54 in Dallas.

I can think of about 10,000 reasons why I would not like it. Like most listeners, I enjoy familiar songs that I like, not obscure stiffs from 40 years ago.

Typical closed mind. Thats why radio is in trouble today. It's going to be interesting to see where "terestrial" radio is in 10 years
with this kind of thinking.

This kind of thinking will save radio from extinction when coupled witth good PDs who combine flow, talent and good promotions.... fun radio. An iPod can not do that.

Groan.

 

[amfmsw]

Just because a song didn't make "Top 10" doesn't mean it won't be remembered, or even more important...liked! "Get Ready" - Temptations is/was a staple for oldies stations for decades. It peaked at a lowly #29!! Every city/region has it's local hits. Philly has "Shy One"-Shirley Ellis. Baltimore has "It's Gonna Take A Miracle" - Royalettes. DC has just about anything by Billy Stewart. And there's only so many songs an test audience will sit for before they fatigue out.

Hell, just listen to a song like "Will You Be Staying After Sunday"- Peppermint Rainbow, or "Working On A Groovy Thing" - Fifth Dimension, or "Devil In Her Heart" - Beatles and tell me how anyone could possibly be offended enough by that sound to change the channel. And THAT'S the acid test. It's a balance of the "Oh Wow" / "Fresh Sound" vs. tuneout, and I've found that the "Oh Wow"...in REASONABLE amounts...every other hour or so...ALWAYS rewards the station with a slightly better cume and hugely better TSL. You simply CANNOT play the same 400 tested songs ad nauseum. But you also CANNOT reason with the young programmers and insultants. Don't get so scientific. Don't overthink this.

 

[radiofriend1]

Just because a song didn't make "Top 10" doesn't mean it won't be remembered, or even more important...liked! "Get Ready" - Temptations is/was a staple for oldies stations for decades. It peaked at a lowly #29!! Every city/region has it's local hits. Philly has "Shy One"-Shirley Ellis. Baltimore has "It's Gonna Take A Miracle" - Royalettes. DC has just about anything by Billy Stewart. And there's only so many songs an test audience will sit for before they fatigue out.

Hell, just listen to a song like "Will You Be Staying After Sunday"- Peppermint Rainbow, or "Working On A Groovy Thing" - Fifth Dimension, or "Devil In Her Heart" - Beatles and tell me how anyone could possibly be offended enough by that sound to change the channel. And THAT'S the acid test. It's a balance of the "Oh Wow" / "Fresh Sound" vs. tuneout, and I've found that the "Oh Wow"...in REASONABLE amounts...every other hour or so...ALWAYS rewards the station with a slightly better cume and hugely better TSL. You simply CANNOT play the same 400 tested songs ad nauseum. But you also CANNOT reason with the young programmers and insultants. Don't get so scientific. Don't overthink this.

a-can't use the temps example and try to convince anybody that applies to all #29 songs. besides chart info means zippo to listeners
b-isn't amatter of being**offended**-it's a matter of being relevant.
c-if u are talking oldies format, 300-400 is of course too few. also reasons that 3000-4000 is way too many. an oh-wow every other hour or so is fine but it can't just be **anything** just cuz it hit the chart at #26 in 1968. even the oh-wow songs have to be done with common sense

 

[TheFonz]

I am sorry, but this is foolish. I do not select songs. The listeners do, and they don't want to hear 2000 songs (yes, we have testeed nearly 4,000 tititles) because there are not 2000 old songs that people TODAY want to hear.

When you talk about "people today" I would guess that you're talking about the few people who still listen to music radio. The listeners who want to hear 2000 songs turned off their terrestrial radios long ago.

 

[amfmsw]

RF1 & Fonz...I believe you both have valid points. 1. I would be judicious of the "Oh Wow" songs, possibly as a spotlight presntation of "Forgotten 45" of a themed daily feature at lunch or drive home.

2. The listeners who like 2000 songs that wandered off will ALWAYS return in time of Community need( Snow Storm, Hurricane, Major town news event), and that's when you can regain they're loyalty as they sample. Satellite will never replace localism.

 

[OldGringo]

I am sorry, but this is foolish. I do not select songs. The listeners do, and they don't want to hear 2000 songs (yes, we have testeed nearly 4,000 tititles) because there are not 2000 old songs that people TODAY want to hear.

When you talk about "people today" I would guess that you're talking about the few people who still listen to music radio. The listeners who want to hear 2000 songs turned off their terrestrial radios long ago.

People have not wanted to listen to 2000 songs ever, as far as I can see. In the 50's and 60's, Top 40 meant 40 songs, and those stations got shares that were sometimes as much as half the listening in each market.

The number of 18-54 people listening to radio today is less than 1% below the level in 1998... before iPods, satellite and widespred high-spoeed internet.

The attrition in radio is in 55+ and under 18, which radio does not serve. And in AM listening in the sales demos... which is NOT music radio. FM music usage is actually flat in the same demos.

Radio ios so healthy, that this year alone two of the top ten radio compnies have decided to go private because investors see the industry undervalued and extremely viable.

 

[radiofriend1]

I am sorry, but this is foolish. I do not select songs. The listeners do, and they don't want to hear 2000 songs (yes, we have testeed nearly 4,000 tititles) because there are not 2000 old songs that people TODAY want to hear.

When you talk about "people today" I would guess that you're talking about the few people who still listen to music radio. The listeners who want to hear 2000 songs turned off their terrestrial radios long ago.

and what is the high school dood talking about some eggplant song and **workin on a groovy thing**. man, those i am sure have stood the test of time over 40 years

many people have a tuff time remembering songs past the top5 most of the time. like they are gonna get all charged up about some song that hit #41 in 1953 that hasn't been played for 40 yrs

go look at the time life CD packages they sell on infomercials (quite successfully, too). they have MAJOR HITS. have u ever seen them do a 30 minute infomercial featuring songs by peppermint rainbow and the royalettes? never. cuz they feed demand and peopel W/MONEY WHO ARE INTO THE MUSIC ENUFF TO BUY IT would not touch that w/a 10' pole

NOT

People have not wanted to listen to 2000 songs ever, as far as I can see. In the 50's and 60's, Top 40 meant 40 songs, and those stations got shares that were sometimes as much as half the listening in each market.

The number of 18-54 people listening to radio today is less than 1% below the level in 1998... before iPods, satellite and widespred high-spoeed internet.

The attrition in radio is in 55+ and under 18, which radio does not serve. And in AM listening in the sales demos... which is NOT music radio. FM music usage is actually flat in the same demos.

Radio ios so healthy, that this year alone two of the top ten radio compnies have decided to go private because investors see the industry undervalued and extremely viable.

 

[amfmsw]

The attrition, I believe, is 12-24, not 55+ The older demo just moved from music to News/Talk/Sports stations. The youngins', for the most part, want IMMEDIATE gratification, and will not stand for spots sets or waiting through a song or two they don't care for. I see it everday with my kids and they're friends. Thay cannot comprehend a radio station in 1966 playing Sinatra "Strangers In The Night" and the Stone "Let's Spend The Night Together" with "Honey Chile" by the Vandellas.