Which is the bigger "tune out" factor?

[michael hagerty]

Apparently, they younger set is more popular with radio now, and they (radio) have ditched us.

It's been bugging me through this thread, so I guess I should address it. There are a lot of references to the younger set and kids.

The most valued demographics are 25-54 and 18-49. The average age of those demos is 39.5 and 33.5, respectively. These aren't kids. They are adults in their peak earning and spending years. The same ages we were when advertisers wanted us, and the same ages that kept MOR stations printing money in the mid-50s to late 60s.

These days, there's very little advertiser demand for teens, so even CHRs are adult formats, aiming 18-24 and 18-34.

 

[michael hagerty]

I mentioned listening to "Mr Big Stuff" because the song sounds thin and dated in the context of the overall sound of most classic hits formats. And, in most markets, the listeners don't want to hear it for whatever reason.

Some listeners may not want to hear it...a big difference. Oh, btw, "Mr. Big Stuff" was played on KRTH yesterday at 3:06pm, the #2 market in the country, and it aired at 11:05pm Tuesday night on CBS-FM, the #1 market in the country.

In the interest of accuracy, David's original example was "Want Ads" by the Honey Cone, not Jean Knight's "Mr. Big Stuff".

Even in their time, the Honey Cone record was considered to be one step above bubblegum, while Jean Knight was vintage Stax soul.

 

[CTListener]

I had two of 'em. One of them the first year they came out, and another in '69. The second one had an engine fire on the PA Turnpike just outside Breezewood... not a fond memory. And it liked oil better than a Texas wildcater.

Those pesky engine fires are why Ralph Nader got after the Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed," right?

 

[michael hagerty]

I had two of 'em. One of them the first year they came out, and another in '69. The second one had an engine fire on the PA Turnpike just outside Breezewood... not a fond memory. And it liked oil better than a Texas wildcater.

Those pesky engine fires are why Ralph Nader got after the Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed," right?

No. It was handling. They had a tendency to want to go around corners tail-first and to lose their composure in emergency maneuvers. Chevy engineers knew about it and designed the vehicle believing a $15 anti-sway bar would be part of the suspension. GM accountants took it out.

The '65-'69 had none of the problems of the first generation and was gorgeous to boot (especially as a coupe), but the damage had been done to the brand by that point.

 

[davideduardo]

Those pesky engine fires are why Ralph Nader got after the Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed," right?

That's one of them... but, as already mentioned, it was handling. The Pinto had the fire issue.

In the 60's I thought the car was so cool I had two of them. I saw one recently at a show, and it was downright ugly! Our tastes change... if we survive the fires!

 

[michael hagerty]

I'm truly baffled at the difference between "Maggie May" and "Want Ads".
They both sound like an advertisement for promiscuity and loose living from 1971.

If anything, Rod Stewart's song is more morally offensive, so why is it that it's OK to play, but not the other?

Wow.

Maggie May first. He's a college student who fell for an older woman. He thought it was love, but it's becoming clear he's just the boytoy...he's being used. He's crushed inside. And he's basically in a fit of conscience as he sings. He really should just leave and get back to school. But in his eyes, she's everything. Maybe if he tells her...

Want Ads? She's the faithful woman who sits home while her man's playing cards with the boys but comes home with lipstick on the collar. She wants a faithful man, single and free (she's not going to cause another woman heartbreak...she's in misery and knows what that's like). Experience in love preferred, but she'll accept a young trainee. He's not something on the side, he's her new steady because "my man and I are through."

Sounds to me like a couple of songs from the viewpoint of wounded people trying to do the right thing.

 

[michael hagerty]

I'm guessing---and I'm not the guesser I used to be---that if a radio station started playing the 1950s hits again, a new generation of young people would discover, and enjoy, the songs...and we who are older would enjoy re-hearing the songs. Someday there might even be a "Music Of Your Life"-type network that plays the early rock'n'roll and r&b. I can only hope.

I'm guessing that about as many young people would be attracted by that as young people 35 years ago were motivated to run out and buy Rudy Vallee 78s when MOYL brought that music back to radio.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Michael but generation 1 & 2 rock/pop was an entirely different breed than the crooning of Rudy Vallee and Bing Crosby.

I remember a company Christmas party in the 70's during the Disco era. Instead of the current Disco hits the company brought in a live Big Band and it was a tremendous hit with the employees - most of whom were under 40 years of age. Both Disco and Big Band were essentially dance music and so could replace each other to a degree. Not so with crooners and RnR.

But if the suggestion is that today's young people could embrace 50s rock and roll because it's the same basic dominant genre as today's music...rock and roll...then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

 

[landtuna]

But if the suggestion is that today's young people could embrace 50s rock and roll because it's the same basic dominant genre as today's music...rock and roll...then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

I disagree that today's "rock" is anything like that of the late 50's. And if you consider the "times" - 50's RnR was breaking brand new ground for popular music while today's is largely ignored except by teeny-boppers. You couldn't even call pop music today, rock. The closest any genre comes to rock today is certain CCM tracks but they tend to mimic the noise that was metal. If you compare the video's and TV music shows they are as redundant to each other as Country has been historically. Same beat. Big hat. Big belt buckle. Yaa-HOO!

I can't answer your CHR question other than to say someone must be listening because there are certainly CHR stations out there.

 

[landtuna]

No. It was handling. They had a tendency to want to go around corners tail-first and to lose their composure in emergency maneuvers. Chevy engineers knew about it and designed the vehicle believing a $15 anti-sway bar would be part of the suspension. GM accountants took it out.

The '65-'69 had none of the problems of the first generation and was gorgeous to boot (especially as a coupe), but the damage had been done to the brand by that point.

Michael is correct. The second gen Corvair was a completely different car than the original (which was brought out as an econo-box). It was a ball to drive fast and the suspension could be tweaked so that it cornered almost as well as a mid-engined car. I drove it at Lime Rock Park and got respectable lap times (even Sam Posey was impressed). I drove mine in ice races and on snow-covered rural roads back east for two winters and had only one misadventure. Unfortunately, I managed to stick it between two large rocks and bent the frame. It was driver error (taking a 15 MPH 90-degree corner at around 50) but the car was history and kinda went down the road sideways like a dog although it still ran.

The only problem I remember with them (other than the optional gasoline heater in NE models) was the valve guides leaking oil.

 

[oldies76]

then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

We grew up with the 50's 60's or 70's, so today's music is "too modern" for our tastes. Some of today's hits are good (Gotye or Maroon 5, for example), but our own "CHR's" is what we grew up with as teens. Personally, mine would be the late 70's to about 1984.

Today's teens can keep today's hits as their number one choice, but many like to learn and know what their parents enjoyed or their grandparents listened to as teens, so the interest may be there. I'm not sure about music as far back as 1955, but the rockin', psychedelic 60's could be in their interests. (Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Beach Boys) who knows....

 

[landtuna]

We grew up with the 50's 60's or 70's, so today's music is "too modern" for our tastes. Some of today's hits are good (Gotye or Maroon 5, for example), but our own "CHR's" is what we grew up with as teens. Personally, mine would be the late 70's to about 1984.

I don't know what "modern" music sounds like. Music has always come in "flavors" which last for awhile then mutate into something else. What makes the 1st and 2nd gens of RnR unique is the experimentation that began with the rockabilly sounds of Elvis and Buddy Holly, continued with the driving guitar riffs of Bill Haley and Eddie Cochrane, incorporated the R&B rhythms of Fats Domino, softened by the Doo-Wop and girl groups and individuals like Rick Nelson and Pat Boone. Not too long after that the Surf sound hit followed by the British Invasion and the rout was on. The Beatles started with primitive guitar riffs and ended with full orchestra backing. So did the Stones. We had instruments in RnR records that were only seen in catalogs - like calliopes and harpsichords and sitars. The music of the 60's made Folk into Folk Rock then Protest Rock and had a major role in ending the Vietnam War. Young people then didn't just identify with the music, they identified with the lifestyle and politics it expressed.

Nothing like that has existed since. What possible comparison can you draw to today's junk?



Today's teens can keep today's hits as their number one choice, but many like to learn and know what their parents enjoyed or their grandparents listened to as teens, so the interest may be there. I'm not sure about music as far back as 1955, but the rockin', psychedelic 60's could be in their interests. (Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Beach Boys) who knows....
[/quote]

 

[firepoint525]

Today's teens can keep today's hits as their number one choice, but many like to learn and know what their parents enjoyed or their grandparents listened to as teens, so the interest may be there. I'm not sure about music as far back as 1955, but the rockin', psychedelic 60's could be in their interests. (Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Beach Boys) who knows....

I never understood the appeal of Tony Bennett to the MTV generation, but if they like him, that's okay with me.

 

[firepoint525]

Apparently, they younger set is more popular with radio now, and they (radio) have ditched us.

It's been bugging me through this thread, so I guess I should address it. There are a lot of references to the younger set and kids.
The most valued demographics are 25-54 and 18-49. The average age of those demos is 39.5 and 33.5, respectively. These aren't kids. They are adults in their peak earning and spending years. The same ages we were when advertisers wanted us, and the same ages that kept MOR stations printing money in the mid-50s to late 60s.
These days, there's very little advertiser demand for teens, so even CHRs are adult formats, aiming 18-24 and 18-34.

I grew up in the '70s on music from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. (Go back and look it up if you want to know how old I am now.) Radio has been relatively irrelevant to me for many years. And yet, I am supposedly still within their prized demographic. The conventional "wisdom" among advertisers is (apparently) that if I am not old enough to remember something from when it was actually a hit, then I supposedly am not familiar with it. Where did that thinking come from? Sure, I am partial to music from my generation, but I am still familiar with the stuff from the '50s and '60s. Evidently, I am required to develop what I call "convenient amnesia" and forget that I remember songs that were hits before I was born. So they were hits before I was born. So what? Doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy them.

The radio station in the town where I grew up was a top 40, but they played everything from the '50s to the '70s. A limited playlist of songs, I am sure, but they played 'em all.

I suppose it could have been worse. I could have grown up somewhere where the only station in town was a country station!

 

[firepoint525]

But if the suggestion is that today's young people could embrace 50s rock and roll because it's the same basic dominant genre as today's music...rock and roll...then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

Nothing to say that you can't. Although you would be an anomaly if you do. Most of today's music that appeals to me would probably be considered AC or at least hot AC. It isn't too bad if it's also mixed in with stuff from the '80s!

But I suppose it could be worse. WABC became WA "Beatle" C at the height of the British invasion. They would be WA "Beiber" C now! ;D

 

[oldies76]

Nothing like that has existed since. What possible comparison can you draw to today's junk?

You can't. There are many "sub genres" under the one genre, that is, Rock and Roll.

Doo-wop, early rock and roll, instrumentals, surf music, girl groups, Motown, British Invasion, Psychedelia, folk-story telling songs, funk, disco, new wave, metal, hair bands, rap/ hip hop, and now electropop and other forms. Just one of many in the rock era.

Just like you cannot compare Elvis to Bobby Goldsboro or Melanie to Sister Sledge. Everything is different and unique.

 

[michael hagerty]

But if the suggestion is that today's young people could embrace 50s rock and roll because it's the same basic dominant genre as today's music...rock and roll...then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

I disagree that today's "rock" is anything like that of the late 50's. And if you consider the "times" - 50's RnR was breaking brand new ground for popular music while today's is largely ignored except by teeny-boppers. You couldn't even call pop music today, rock.

I can't answer your CHR question other than to say someone must be listening because there are certainly CHR stations out there.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, CHR stations tend to target 18-34 these days. That's an average listener age of 26. And they must be hitting the targets, because not only are there CHR stations out there, they are doing exceptionally well.

 

[michael hagerty]

then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

We grew up with the 50's 60's or 70's, so today's music is "too modern" for our tastes. Some of today's hits are good (Gotye or Maroon 5, for example), but our own "CHR's" is what we grew up with as teens. Personally, mine would be the late 70's to about 1984.

Today's teens can keep today's hits as their number one choice, but many like to learn and know what their parents enjoyed or their grandparents listened to as teens, so the interest may be there. I'm not sure about music as far back as 1955, but the rockin', psychedelic 60's could be in their interests. (Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Beach Boys) who knows....

Ah, but the idea was to bring back the music as a radio format and expose today's young people to that music so they could appreciate and embrace it.

And I can tell you first-hand, kids do listen to music from other eras. My son went through a serious classic rock binge when he was 18. Most of my Beatles CDs and my Antonio Carlos Jobim/Frank Sinatra CD are on my daughter's iPod.

But to make it a workable format, one that would have a large enough listening base in any given 15 minute period to make the station successful, you'd have to do research to find out what songs which listeners liked and disliked, and then weed out the ones with the negatives to keep the listening level from dropping below profitability and......

(wavy screen....harp music)

Haven't we heard this somewhere before? ;D

 

[michael hagerty]

Today's teens can keep today's hits as their number one choice, but many like to learn and know what their parents enjoyed or their grandparents listened to as teens, so the interest may be there. I'm not sure about music as far back as 1955, but the rockin', psychedelic 60's could be in their interests. (Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Beach Boys) who knows....

I never understood the appeal of Tony Bennett to the MTV generation, but if they like him, that's okay with me.

Tony's appeal is that he's never been hostile to younger artists, never dismissed their music as junk or trash, but never chased after trends attempting to be hip and failing miserably (Frank Sinatra's covers of Mrs. Robinson and Bad Bad Leroy Brown are all the examples of how wrong that goes we'll be needing). He's authentic. And so, a significant section of that generation responded positively.

 

[michael hagerty]

But if the suggestion is that today's young people could embrace 50s rock and roll because it's the same basic dominant genre as today's music...rock and roll...then why doesn't it work in reverse? Why aren't we CHR listeners?

Nothing to say that you can't. Although you would be an anomaly if you do. Most of today's music that appeals to me would probably be considered AC or at least hot AC. It isn't too bad if it's also mixed in with stuff from the '80s!

But I suppose it could be worse. WABC became WA "Beatle" C at the height of the British invasion. They would be WA "Beiber" C now! ;D

Well, the dirty little secret in all this is that...I do. Not nearly as much as I used to...but more than I did for a few years. I still sample the CHR stations.

Of course, I also like music from my parents' generation....and Classical, and Jazz, and Country......

But appreciating something and having enough of the right demographic listening at the same time all the time to make a profit.....that's two different things.

 

[oldies76]

But to make it a workable format, one that would have a large enough listening base in any given 15 minute period to make the station successful, you'd have to do research to find out what songs which listeners liked and disliked, and then weed out the ones with the negatives to keep the listening level from dropping below profitability and......

(wavy screen....harp music)

Haven't we heard this somewhere before? ;D

I don't see how you can test today's teens on music of the 50's and incorporate the results into a new workable format, if they never grew up with them. They would be unfamiliar with probably over 95% of those hits, just in the top 10. They might know Elvis, Buddy Holly or the Champs. Would they appreciate Gogi Grant, Lloyd Price or Pat Boone or even Paul Anka? It's anyone's guess.