Westwood One adds new 24/7 Good Time Oldies format to replace Scott Shannon's TOC

[Avid Listener]

Avid - your post makes perfect sense. Even in 2014. They should have gotten some real stars like Don Henley. Dionne Warwick and Stevie Wonder.

That had never occurred to me, but now that you mention it, people like those you named would probably have a certain extra value in attracting listeners, at least at first. It's not a guarantee. I remember when "Diamond" David Lee Roth attempted to replace Howard Stern, though it's not a happy memory. Since this new venture will be automated and syndicated, it shouldn't be too difficult to find people like those three, plus others, who'd be open to a gig spending a few hours a week taping voice drop-in tracks.

 

[davideduardo]

Avid - your post makes perfect sense. Even in 2014. They should have gotten some real stars like Don Henley. Dionne Warwick and Stevie Wonder.

Music stars seldom make good jocks. They know how to sing and play... But if you hear most of them in interviews you will realize that they are terrible at improvisation and dialog. They may have a lot to sing, but generally have nothing to say.

 

[firepoint525]

Lori, I hope that the affiliate stations do well, but I have indeed never heard of your husband. Doesn't mean that he is a bad guy; just that I am unfamiliar with him. I see by the material that you have posted that he at one time had Maria Danza as his co-host. I have heard of her. She is on the "classic hits radio" affiliate stations, the nearest affiliate to me being WKOM out of Columbia, TN. They are also now on WHDM of McKenzie, TN, which was the first station that I ever worked for, well over 20 years ago.

 

[Lori Pollitt]

Thank you, Firepoint. Maria is awesome!! She started with Jim in the early 90s. She was an intern and Jim coached her from the very beginning. If memory serves me correctly she was reluctant to talk at first, she helped gather carts and do other various things. Jim encouraged her to pipe in once and it was history from there. They truly created a wonderful chemistry together on-air and worked together for over a decade. She's great as a stand alone personality, but we (Maria included) are all hoping that one day the two of them could be reunited on the air together. Time will tell.

 

[Avid Listener]

Music stars seldom make good jocks. They know how to sing and play... But if you hear most of them in interviews you will realize that they are terrible at improvisation and dialog. They may have a lot to sing, but generally have nothing to say.

While I can understand how forums like this lend themselves to discriminatory stereotyping of all individuals within a given class of people, isn't such negative, discriminatory stereotyping something that should be avoided? I don't think Tibbs2 or I was envisioning them as traditional DJs, sitting in a little studio, cuing up records (or the modern, digital equivalent). I know I wasn't. In a voice tracking environment, with good management behind them, there must be quite a few artists from the classic era who are articulate enough to provide spoken content to fill an entertaining voice track.

I also must assume you never saw any of Glenn Frey's work as an actor on Miami Vice, Wiseguy, or Jerry Maquire. Nor did you see Dionne Warwick's acting work, or any of the acting Huey Lewis did. Just because most musical artists aren't especially glib in interview situations doesn't mean that none of them are. And, just because someone doesn't come across great in a "cold read" situation doesn't mean that they couldn't do well in a voice-tracking situation, where they have coaching, possibly writers, and the ability to do re-takes.

The most important thing is that even if it takes a little more work to polish a musical performer's work at voice-tracking a syndicated oldies format, being able to promote names with star power should still attract more listeners than promoting names who are only "legends" within the closed world of broadcasting executives.

For someone who reduces everything down to what's best for ratings, I can't understand why you wouldn't seize on the advantages of name recognition and star power.

 

[firepoint525]

I don't particularly like the format because I am not a fan of hair bands, but Dee Snider does a great job with his "House of Hair" that is syndicated over some rock stations.

 

[davideduardo]

I know I wasn't. In a voice tracking environment, with good management behind them, there must be quite a few artists from the classic era who are articulate enough to provide spoken content to fill an entertaining voice track.

The problem is that there are really very few artists who have anything interesting to say outside of anecdotes and impressions about their careers. The few who are glib, intelligent and spontaneous also tend to be the ones who are still active in their careers and are doing shows or producing or whatever and are not available to do an ongoing radio gig.

I also must assume you never saw any of Glenn Frey's work as an actor on Miami Vice, Wiseguy, or Jerry Maquire. Nor did you see Dionne Warwick's acting work, or any of the acting Huey Lewis did.

You just identified why few TV folks do well on radio. Actors are scripted and directed. TV appearances are laid out in advance, timed, and directed. Radio is spontaneous and improvisational.

Your reference to scripted actors is irrelevant.

Just because most musical artists aren't especially glib in interview situations doesn't mean that none of them are.

Based on dealing with artists ranging from the newcomers to the superstars over 5 decades, I'd say this is generally a dead end. What you end up with is Danny Bonaduce and a few others who saved a dead music or screen career with radio work. Most who try do not succeed. I've tried, and several friends have tried, with music and TV stars in LA; accessability, significant budgets and all the right environmental aspects yet in the long run, the efforts failed.

And, just because someone doesn't come across great in a "cold read" situation doesn't mean that they couldn't do well in a voice-tracking situation, where they have coaching, possibly writers, and the ability to do re-takes.

Voice tracks are not "read". They are spontaneous, improvised and seldom use more than one take. Most are done undirected and unsupervised by the VT talent. The costs for any other method are too great.

The most important thing is that even if it takes a little more work to polish a musical performer's work at voice-tracking a syndicated oldies format, being able to promote names with star power should still attract more listeners than promoting names who are only "legends" within the closed world of broadcasting executives.

The star power of artists may work with an occasional "co-host" situation, but does not pan out in the long run. The use of jocks whose talent is verified and whose track records stand on their own does work... if a particular jock is not known in a particular market, that is not a negative as being a good jock wins out in formats where DJs are important.

Remember, from the 50's up to the time of consolidation, DJs moved around the country, and were always looking for a bigger market or bigger station. Most stations outside the biggest major markets had several jock lineup changes a year... and some were famous as being incubators of great talent.

For someone who reduces everything down to what's best for ratings, I can't understand why you wouldn't seize on the advantages of name recognition and star power.

It seldom works. Been there, done that, have the T-Shirt. In fact, have a drawer full.

 

[Avid Listener]

The problem is that there are really very few artists who have anything interesting to say outside of anecdotes and impressions about their careers. The few who are glib, intelligent and spontaneous also tend to be the ones who are still active in their careers and are doing shows or producing or whatever and are not available to do an ongoing radio gig.

Like there are more than a tiny handful of Disc Jockeys with anything interesting to say! That is, if they were permitted to actually say anything!!!

 

[davideduardo]

Like there are more than a tiny handful of Disc Jockeys with anything interesting to say! That is, if they were permitted to actually say anything!!!

Brevity has always been the soul of a good jock.

If we go back to 1965 in LA, both of the Top 40 stations, KFWB and KRLA, were chatty and the jocks tended to be long winded. Even the station jingles were often 20" to 30" long! Along came Drake and Jacobs. They did shotgun jingles, and worked to have the jocks say a lot in very little time. Within months, they beat the two established in-format stations.

Yet those who listened considered that KHJ had the best personalities, the most fun and interesting content, and the highest profile.

Today's talent is not kept from talking as much as being kept from talking too much.

And today's listener has different expectations. Top 40 was the "social media" of earlier decades. High School reporters, Friday football scores, shout outs and dedications, remotes, station fronted concerts. Today we have other and often better ways of doing those things, and expect radio (whether AM or FM or streams) to fill different needs. One of those is not to get in the way of what we are doing at the same time.

 

[ok walters]

I hired a long time DJ come to work at WLBE when I was manager. He hadn't been a DJ in almost a decade, but he was an old AM top 40 guy from years gone by so he was a perfect fit. He came on air and introduced himself and then played three songs before saying another word. I was quite surprised and asked him about it. Best line ever - he said the music is the main course and the DJ is just the condiment. You can have the main course without the condiment - a hot dog without mustard or music without a DJ - but it isn't as good. Too much mustard is a problem too, so the best DJs know how much mustard is the right amount of mustard. Made sense to me.

 

[Silkie]

I keep forgetting. You radio insiders tend to ignore the mere peons who only listen to the radio. To those of us who only turn the radio on and hope we hear something we like, the names of DJs from distant cities are pretty meaningless. The only oldies station I ever enjoyed listening to was programmed by a PD who worked at the station, and all the DJs worked in the station's actual studio (except when doing live remotes). But, I get the distinct impression some folks in radio are more concerned with impressing other insiders than they are with what irrelevant listeners might think.

You might be pleasantly surprised by the sparkle of some who seem dated and faded. An analogy might be seeing the life, vigor and fiery gems in the eyes and quick mind of a wrinkled, greying sage of ages. But that is just my opinion as one who appreciates proper handling of good music, without saying that a younger person cannot do any better. They don't have some of the depth that the more experienced may have. I am not a radio insider, and I enjoy the aforementioned qualities. I also listen to an AM station that has been on the air for somewhere close to 70 years, keeping up with it all.

 

[Lori Pollitt]

I hired a long time DJ come to work at WLBE when I was manager. He hadn't been a DJ in almost a decade, but he was an old AM top 40 guy from years gone by so he was a perfect fit. He came on air and introduced himself and then played three songs before saying another word. I was quite surprised and asked him about it. Best line ever - he said the music is the main course and the DJ is just the condiment. You can have the main course without the condiment - a hot dog without mustard or music without a DJ - but it isn't as good. Too much mustard is a problem too, so the best DJs know how much mustard is the right amount of mustard. Made sense to me.

Good analogy. Jim sent out a memo when he was PD at SMN/ABC to his jocks. The memo contained 2 words - "WORD ECONOMY." Jim is a master of doing personality radio but doing it in the most efficient "use of words" form. A lot of jocks just like to hear themselves talk and chatter and chatter, and everyone in the room giggles. Jim has always said with show prep, he knows how he will get out of a break before he ever begins it. If someone in the room chimes in with something funnier, he hits the button and into the music he goes. Some jocks have egos too big to enable them to do that. They want to have the last laugh, but it ends up not being good radio because listeners do want to get back into the music. They enjoy some chatter, but many jocks don't know where to stop. The listeners want the relationship with the jock, the connection, but they are there to hear the music (of course unless it is is a talk show.) Then contrary to this is when a station doesn't allow the jock to use personality in a show and it does become a watered down, "vanilla" (as Avid put it) show, more like a "that was..", "this is.." intros without any creativity. What's exciting to Jim about to new WW1 GTO show is that it will be personality driven and Jim is a pro at knowing how much is too little and how much is too much. Watch (listen) and see what he will do with it. He truly will bring back the fun that Avid says has gone away in radio. I have no doubt about that...but again, I am his wife and am biased.

Additionally, Jim has also always been the conductor in the room in any morning show environment, but not so "needy" as to have to be the one with the best punch line. And in using the phones, often the listener gives him the golden egg, and he's back in the music. In today's PPM world brevity is vital.

btw- Jim, too has tried to help celebs break into the world of being a dj. For example, he worked wit Jerry Mathers, the Beave...in Leave It To Beaver and Jerry even said it couldn't work. That's nothing against Jerry. It was just a different, unknown world to him as compared to what he was used to with acting. Good points, once again David!

And, vtk'ing a show is not just punching out a few voice tracks in a matter of a few hours a week for anyone who knows how to do it right...unless of course they are just "phoning it in"
and don't care how it sounds.

 

[Avid Listener]

I hired a long time DJ come to work at WLBE when I was manager. He hadn't been a DJ in almost a decade, but he was an old AM top 40 guy from years gone by so he was a perfect fit. He came on air and introduced himself and then played three songs before saying another word. I was quite surprised and asked him about it. Best line ever - he said the music is the main course and the DJ is just the condiment. You can have the main course without the condiment - a hot dog without mustard or music without a DJ - but it isn't as good. Too much mustard is a problem too, so the best DJs know how much mustard is the right amount of mustard. Made sense to me.

That's almost right. The DJ isn't even the condiment. He's the garnish. A condiment like mustard makes a hot dog taste even better. A garnish like a sprig of parsley on the side of a plate is pretty, but has no affect on the taste of the meal. Serve a hot dog without a condiment, you're missing something. Serve a steak without parsley and no one would notice.

 

[Tibbs4]

So, am I reading this right, Avid. The DJ is a throw away, tasteless and unnecessary garnish?

 

[Avid Listener]

So, am I reading this right, Avid. The DJ is a throw away, tasteless and unnecessary garnish?

In today's world of radio, given the constraints placed on them, yes. Two radio stations in direct competition with each other will succeed or fail in their attempt to attract listeners almost exclusively through their music selection. No disc jockey is appealing enough in any modern radio format to pull enough listeners away from a music format that they prefer to a music format that isn't their first choice to make any significant difference in the ratings. In the extremely unlikely event that there are two stations in the same market that both play the exact same playlist, then, and only then, would the DJ's be the tiebreaker. Otherwise, no one is going to choose to listen to a classic hits station if they prefer the music on a CHR station, regardless of how good the DJ is.

The only exception might be the typical "morning zoo" type of radio show where comedy skits and other non-music content dominate the show. But then you're no longer talking about "DJ's".

 

[firepoint525]

So, am I reading this right, Avid. The DJ is a throw away, tasteless and unnecessary garnish?

When his name is Chris Lucky, he is. He is so bad that I don't even listen to Hippie Radio when he is on. He does indeed get in the way of the music, and overtalks nearly every song intro! He is a legend in his own mind. Even the wife can't stand him, and that is NOT my influence on her!

 

[davideduardo]

In today's world of radio, given the constraints placed on them, yes. Two radio stations in direct competition with each other will succeed or fail in their attempt to attract listeners almost exclusively through their music selection.

While there are exceptions... ranging from pure music plays like Pandora to mix shows where the DJ spins rather than talks... you are just incredibly wrong on this.

There are variations in the degree of participation and talking by both daypart and format, but the glue that holds music formats together is what goes between the songs. That means the jock, the imaging, the promotions, the service elements and even the commercial load.

While technology has made the model different via voice tracking and such, the host is critical to most formats.

No disc jockey is appealing enough in any modern radio format to pull enough listeners away from a music format that they prefer to a music format that isn't their first choice to make any significant difference in the ratings. In the extremely unlikely event that there are two stations in the same market that both play the exact same playlist, then, and only then, would the DJ's be the tiebreaker. Otherwise, no one is going to choose to listen to a classic hits station if they prefer the music on a CHR station, regardless of how good the DJ is.

Your mistake is to think that people only like one genre or format. Generally, they listen to 5 or 6 stations regularly and perhaps another 2 or 3 on a less frequent basis, so one factor in deciding whether to listen to one or another of a person's favorite stations is the presentation.

The only exception might be the typical "morning zoo" type of radio show where comedy skits and other non-music content dominate the show. But then you're no longer talking about "DJ's".

Morning Zoo type shows today are quite music based; it is unlikely you would listen to a CHR station for the equivalent-to-a-Zoo show if you hate Katy Perry and Pitbull.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I don't particularly like the format because I am not a fan of hair bands, but Dee Snider does a great job with his "House of Hair" that is syndicated over some rock stations.

He sure does. I do actually like some of what he plays, too. And I don't mean the softer stuff.

 

[vchimpanzee]

In broadcast radio, the blandest, most boring aspect of the product is the unimaginative selection of songs to play. Sirius is many things, but in terms of the selection of songs you can hear played, they are not at all bland and boring.

This may have been the case before the merger, but from what I've heard most of the formats are not as good as they were.

 

[Avid Listener]

There are variations in the degree of participation and talking by both daypart and format, but the glue that holds music formats together is what goes between the songs. That means the jock, the imaging, the promotions, the service elements and even the commercial load.

While technology has made the model different via voice tracking and such, the host is critical to most formats.

That sounds like some sort of authoritative pronouncement from one of the gods atop Mount Radio. Based on what I can hear with my own two ears, that statement makes no sense.

Your mistake is to think that people only like one genre or format. Generally, they listen to 5 or 6 stations regularly and perhaps another 2 or 3 on a less frequent basis, so one factor in deciding whether to listen to one or another of a person's favorite stations is the presentation.

No, your mistake is to think that when someone is in a mood to hear a particular type of music, he'll have a choice between two stations with the exact same format, and he'll make his selection based on the DJ. If the DJ is a factor, it's so far down the list of importance as to be too negligible to mention.

Morning Zoo type shows today are quite music based; it is unlikely you would listen to a CHR station for the equivalent-to-a-Zoo show if you hate Katy Perry and Pitbull.

Some are music-based, some aren't. I said that the hosts might make a difference, in situations "where comedy skits and other non-music content dominate the show." If it is a morning show that is music-based, rather than dominated by comedy skits and other non-music content, then that's not what I was talking about, was it?