R
Radio_Realist
Guest
so these people may have been a little before my time.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was before my time, but I still heard of him.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was before my time, but I still heard of him.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WAMO FM Has New Morning Show
- Thread starter ChancellorDukat
- Start date
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was before my time, but I still heard of him.
You're comparing the former President of the United States to radio personalities that few people outside of Pittsburgh know about? Come on Realist! I thought I gave you more credit than that!
You're comparing the former President of the United States to radio personalities that few people outside of Pittsburgh know about? Come on Realist! I thought I gave you more credit than that!
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
You're comparing the former President of the United States to radio personalities that few people outside of Pittsburgh know about?
No, I'm was just illustrating the point that the excuse of someone being from before your time doesn't hold water. And it was aimed not so much at you specifically as the board in general.
This is one of those general, philosophical observations on life in general. There is an unfortunate tendency to throw the descriptor "great" around willy-nilly to any person, place, or thing that was slightly above average. This thread has seen posts from several people who seemed to have simply written down every DJ whose name they could remember from a few decades ago.
I believe that to be called "great", one needs to have made a contribution or accomplished something above and beyond merely doing a little better than average. So I listed the names of some of the people who actually did the very first KDKA broadcast in 1920. So maybe that wasn't as enduring a format as reading liner cards between every two or three songs, if those pioneers hadn't done what they did, this forum wouldn't exist.
Sure, I had to do some research to find some of those names. And some of those people are early DJ's from back in the days when DJ shows weren't the only program format but they still existed. One of the things that surprises me is that whenever I make statements about the Golden Age of radio, no one ever points out that there were DJ shows back in the 1920's and 30's.
If someone doesn't care about the history of radio, that's fine. There's no law saying anyone should. But that's no reason to say anything negative about those who do appreciate what radio used to be, and how it got to where it is today.
No, I'm was just illustrating the point that the excuse of someone being from before your time doesn't hold water. And it was aimed not so much at you specifically as the board in general.
This is one of those general, philosophical observations on life in general. There is an unfortunate tendency to throw the descriptor "great" around willy-nilly to any person, place, or thing that was slightly above average. This thread has seen posts from several people who seemed to have simply written down every DJ whose name they could remember from a few decades ago.
I believe that to be called "great", one needs to have made a contribution or accomplished something above and beyond merely doing a little better than average. So I listed the names of some of the people who actually did the very first KDKA broadcast in 1920. So maybe that wasn't as enduring a format as reading liner cards between every two or three songs, if those pioneers hadn't done what they did, this forum wouldn't exist.
Sure, I had to do some research to find some of those names. And some of those people are early DJ's from back in the days when DJ shows weren't the only program format but they still existed. One of the things that surprises me is that whenever I make statements about the Golden Age of radio, no one ever points out that there were DJ shows back in the 1920's and 30's.
If someone doesn't care about the history of radio, that's fine. There's no law saying anyone should. But that's no reason to say anything negative about those who do appreciate what radio used to be, and how it got to where it is today.
I take your point, Realist. Well said.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
This thread has seen posts from several people who seemed to have simply written down every DJ whose name they could remember from a few decades ago.
That was your post, right?
I thought you might have been supportive of my list, considering it had at least 7 program directors and general managers on it--including the man responsible for the KQV-FM and WDVE early and formative progressive rock days, Bob Wilson, and the man who let it all happen, John Gibbs.
I didn't know our lists had to be complete and exhaustive. I'll remember that next time.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
I thought you might have been supportive of my list, considering it had at least 7 program directors and general managers on it
I find it difficult to believe that there were seven Program Directors who were so outstanding, so head-and-shoulders above the crowd that they qualified for the descriptor "great". I can believe one or two great ones, and the rest "above average" or even "really, really good". But "great" isn't the kind of label that should be thrown around willy-nilly on everyone who has any level of success.
"I didn't know our lists had to be complete and exhaustive."
I didn't know there were such rules either. I just thought that anyone who is a professional communicator would appreciate the subtle meanings of words, and would recognize that "great" meant, well, "great", and not just "above average".
And, I thought more people who recognize that the radio industry didn't just spring into existence the day they were born.
I find it difficult to believe that there were seven Program Directors who were so outstanding, so head-and-shoulders above the crowd that they qualified for the descriptor "great". I can believe one or two great ones, and the rest "above average" or even "really, really good". But "great" isn't the kind of label that should be thrown around willy-nilly on everyone who has any level of success.
"I didn't know our lists had to be complete and exhaustive."
I didn't know there were such rules either. I just thought that anyone who is a professional communicator would appreciate the subtle meanings of words, and would recognize that "great" meant, well, "great", and not just "above average".
And, I thought more people who recognize that the radio industry didn't just spring into existence the day they were born.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
I see, so you are the final arbiter of "greatness"?
I'll remember that.
I find it hard to believe that your list of greatness stops right around 1955. So, nothing was great after that point.
How sad for you that you've lived a majority of your life in mediocrity.
Though most people here would disagree with that.
Also, I never said that all seven were great as program directors, only that some of them on the list were also program directors or managers. You can't tell me that John Gibbs, John Rook, Mike McCormick, Bob Wilson, and Gene Romano weren't great PDs and GMs.
And although I include Clarke Ingram more for his air work, he was and is a pretty damn good PD too.
But, again, this all goes back to your constant meme that music radio doesn't mean crap (while at the same time praising DVE's origins.) But for Wilson and Gibbs, DVE would have never gotten the time of day, let alone the respect it did and does.
It's not always "the music," sir. It would be nice of you to appreciate that for once.
I'll remember that.
I find it hard to believe that your list of greatness stops right around 1955. So, nothing was great after that point.
How sad for you that you've lived a majority of your life in mediocrity.
Though most people here would disagree with that.
Also, I never said that all seven were great as program directors, only that some of them on the list were also program directors or managers. You can't tell me that John Gibbs, John Rook, Mike McCormick, Bob Wilson, and Gene Romano weren't great PDs and GMs.
And although I include Clarke Ingram more for his air work, he was and is a pretty damn good PD too.
But, again, this all goes back to your constant meme that music radio doesn't mean crap (while at the same time praising DVE's origins.) But for Wilson and Gibbs, DVE would have never gotten the time of day, let alone the respect it did and does.
It's not always "the music," sir. It would be nice of you to appreciate that for once.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
I see, so you are the final arbiter of "greatness"?
No, I simply think that based on how the dictionary defines "great", simply being above average doesn't meet the criteria of being "great".
"I find it hard to believe that your list of greatness stops right around 1955."
I find it hard to believe that you didn't recognize that I was simply adding to the list of those already named.
"he was and is a pretty damn good PD too."
Pretty damn good isn't the same as great.
"But for Wilson and Gibbs, DVE would have never gotten the time of day, let alone the respect it did and does."
Yes, I agree that they did a very good job of following the trends of all the other AOR stations in the country.
No, I simply think that based on how the dictionary defines "great", simply being above average doesn't meet the criteria of being "great".
"I find it hard to believe that your list of greatness stops right around 1955."
I find it hard to believe that you didn't recognize that I was simply adding to the list of those already named.
"he was and is a pretty damn good PD too."
Pretty damn good isn't the same as great.
"But for Wilson and Gibbs, DVE would have never gotten the time of day, let alone the respect it did and does."
Yes, I agree that they did a very good job of following the trends of all the other AOR stations in the country.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
"he was and is a pretty damn good PD too."
Pretty damn good isn't the same as great.
No, but he IS a great jock. And that's why he's on the list.
I really don't understand you--you want to add to the list, then excoriate those who have already contributed because you don't like the era of their choices.
If Wilson and Gibbs followed the trends, explain what makes any scripted show before 1955 unique? Wasn't that just "the trend"?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"explain what makes any scripted show before 1955 unique?"
If it was the first of its kind, I'd call that unique. If it was head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd in excellence and longevity, I'd say that was "great". If it stands the test of time, if listening to re-runs of it today are still entertaining, I'd say that was "great".
I'd say that the first disc jockey to ever do a songs & patter in between show was an innovator, and someone who deserved to be called "great". I'd say any disc jockey who pushed the edge of the envelope and changed the nature of disc jockey programming deserves to be called "great".
To use other media as examples, I'd say that Desi Arnaz inventing the fiml-with-three-cameras-in-front-of-a-studio-audience sitcom was a major innovator. He created something new, something that was never done before.
Sometimes a rare individual comes along who doesn't innovate anything new, but who does something so extraordinarily well, so far and away above the run-of-the-mill, that it deserves to be called "great". Such individuals are extremely rare. They might come along once in a decade, if then.
"you don't like the era of their choices"
It's not an issue of "liking" the era. It's the sheer overkill of listing almost everyone who simply worked in radio at the time and calling them "great". That's like claiming that everyone who was ever on the Steelers' roster in the 1970's deserves to be in the Football Hall of Fame.
When you include anyone and everyone who was the least little bit above average as "great", you devalue the word "great" and make it meaningless. Superlatives only have meaning if they apply only to the extraordinary few. If you devalue the word "great" to mean almost anyone, then what word do you use to describe the elite few at the very top? Do you do like Hollywood did and make every actor, no matter how pedestrian, a "star" and then coin the word "superstar" to describe the real stars?
If it was the first of its kind, I'd call that unique. If it was head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd in excellence and longevity, I'd say that was "great". If it stands the test of time, if listening to re-runs of it today are still entertaining, I'd say that was "great".
I'd say that the first disc jockey to ever do a songs & patter in between show was an innovator, and someone who deserved to be called "great". I'd say any disc jockey who pushed the edge of the envelope and changed the nature of disc jockey programming deserves to be called "great".
To use other media as examples, I'd say that Desi Arnaz inventing the fiml-with-three-cameras-in-front-of-a-studio-audience sitcom was a major innovator. He created something new, something that was never done before.
Sometimes a rare individual comes along who doesn't innovate anything new, but who does something so extraordinarily well, so far and away above the run-of-the-mill, that it deserves to be called "great". Such individuals are extremely rare. They might come along once in a decade, if then.
"you don't like the era of their choices"
It's not an issue of "liking" the era. It's the sheer overkill of listing almost everyone who simply worked in radio at the time and calling them "great". That's like claiming that everyone who was ever on the Steelers' roster in the 1970's deserves to be in the Football Hall of Fame.
When you include anyone and everyone who was the least little bit above average as "great", you devalue the word "great" and make it meaningless. Superlatives only have meaning if they apply only to the extraordinary few. If you devalue the word "great" to mean almost anyone, then what word do you use to describe the elite few at the very top? Do you do like Hollywood did and make every actor, no matter how pedestrian, a "star" and then coin the word "superstar" to describe the real stars?
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
I hardly think that the folks who have been mentioned here--in all of these posts--are anything BUT the extraordinary few. Everyone called "great" is great. Your list, my list, Ken's list.
We're looking at 86 years of radio. Given the number of folks who have been on-air in that time, this really is the extraordinary few.
You disagree, which is fine. But that doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong for including them, as wish to assert.
We're looking at 86 years of radio. Given the number of folks who have been on-air in that time, this really is the extraordinary few.
You disagree, which is fine. But that doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong for including them, as wish to assert.
Johnny Morgan said:We're looking at 86 years of radio. Given the number of folks who have been on-air in that time, this really is the extraordinary few.
If I understand you correctly, Realist, you're calling attention to the fact that we shouldn't overlook the pioneers who started this business in Pittsburgh back in 1920. I totally agree. Those were the ones who deserved the label "great" because if there were no yesterday, there would be no today to speak of. Much like the pioneers in the early days of television, when it was seen as a passing fad. When KD had celebrated its 40th anniversary in 1988, they had many of the original staff members in their promos that were there when the station signed on. Sadly, we tend to forget those who got all of this started and give credit to those who contributed in their own right, but their contributions may not have had as much value as their industry 'ancestors' so to speak.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
If I understand you correctly, Realist, you're calling attention to the fact that we shouldn't overlook the pioneers who started this business in Pittsburgh back in 1920.
Exactly.
Exactly.
kenhawk1160 said:Who are the great Pittsburgh radio people?
I'm glad you asked! Here's a SHORT list:
Porky Chedwick (duh), Jim Quinn, Joe Fenn, Brother Matt, Jack Bogut, Chris DeCarlo, Bob Tracey, Jim Cunningham, Sara Lockard, and Jimmy Roach. If I left anyone out, I said this was a SHORT list!
Joe Fenn on 3WS is godawful. Chris DeCarlo has nice jugs.
Boss Radio said:Joe Fenn on 3WS is godawful. Chris DeCarlo has nice jugs.
Hey, easy...both of those people are friends of mine. Let's keep this professional.
As professional as Chris was when she took her clothes off for Playboy? If she hadn't done that, no one would know who she is.
Boss Radio said:As professional as Chris was when she took her clothes off for Playboy? If she hadn't done that, no one would know who she is.
You want to assassinate someone's character, I'm not going to be a part of it. Of course, that's easy to do when you hide behind a sobriquet.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
You want to assassinate someone's character, I'm not going to be a part of it.
Pointing out that someone voluntarily appeared without her clothes on in Playboy magazine is not an assassination of character. It would be different if she had been secretly snapped in the buff by the paparrazi and her privacy had been invaded. Also, her album of her alleged "personal favorite photos" include several shots in a skimpy bikini with the aforementioned attributes displayed prominently.
If she is proud of them, and likes showing them off, it is not a character assasination to note that fact.
Pointing out that someone voluntarily appeared without her clothes on in Playboy magazine is not an assassination of character. It would be different if she had been secretly snapped in the buff by the paparrazi and her privacy had been invaded. Also, her album of her alleged "personal favorite photos" include several shots in a skimpy bikini with the aforementioned attributes displayed prominently.
If she is proud of them, and likes showing them off, it is not a character assasination to note that fact.
Radio_Realist said:If she is proud of them, and likes showing them off, it is not a character assasination to note that fact.
Realist, you're missing the point here. The purpose of this thread and the board in general is discuss radio. Not one's personal life. This started as a discussion about the greats in radio, and suddenly Boss wants to start talking about something that has nothing to do with one's contributions to the industry. When you take a cheap shot like that at someone for something that happened more than two decades ago, and totally overlooking her radio abilities, that's character assassination to me.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.