• 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

Why are San Francisco DJs so much worse than other markets?

WHATEVER! NEXGEN IS PERFECT AND ALLOWS YOU TO PRODUCE A "LIVE SOUNDING" 4 HOUR SHIFT IN 20 MINS! ::)

for those that haven't worked for a CC NEXGEN is THE automation sytem a.k.a "the coming of Christ" in some circles>
 
"WHATEVER! NEXGEN IS PERFECT AND ALLOWS YOU TO PRODUCE A "LIVE SOUNDING" 4 HOUR SHIFT IN 20 MINS!"

Whatever "live sounding" means... when I said McPeake's show was a bad voice track, I wasn't referring to the technical side of things - there was nothing wrong with the sound. I was saying it was bad in the sense that there was almost NO content from McPeake - and there was no relation between the jock and the music. Again - I can't see any reason DJs can't voicetrack shows where they relate to the music, back-announce the songs, and actually say some stuff that's of interest to the audience. John Tesh provides content, and IDs some of the songs...not that I'm a fan of his . Voice-tracking may be hated by jocks because it puts them out of work, but in terms of what the listeners hear on the air, it's not the voice-tracking technology that's the villain here - the problem is that the DJ and/or management doesn't give a s--t about providing anything other than a jukebox (or i-pod) with commercials.

Why even bother to voicetrack such a crappy show? Max-FM has more content than that with those silly "Maxwell" interludes.
 
John Tesh has a writer and I think thats the only reason theres content. I wholeheartedly agree that one of the problems with voicetracking is the jocks not caring. There's this distance thats created by not living in that city or not being live that old jocks havent learned to overcome.
 
McPeake is also the APD/MD of the station. He probably doesn't have time between seeing the music reps, scheduling all the music for Star and it's HD2 channel, etc to do the kind of prep he would like. Even if you can voice track a 4-5 hour shift in 20 minutes (and you can, and make it sound great), it still takes a couple hours a day to do the prep to make the tracks sound like a good live show. I suspect a lot of broadcast management doesn't want to hear this, let alone allow their talent the time for it, but it's true.
 
Even though it rarely does, voicetracking actually can sound really good. I listened to Fred Schneider's show on Sirius once and he sounded great. Totally tracked from his home studio, but he put a lot of effort into it and actually did a "show". The reason VT always sounds crappy is that stations use it solely as a way of saving money. They basically just tell the staff "Yeah, after you finish your 10 hour workday, go track a shift. It'll only take you 20 minutes"....and it does...I've seen people do it in 15...and it sounds like it.
 
tracking can sound good if you know how to do it...I have worked with people that are either great or garbage. there's not really a middle ground...but i was being very sarcastic about my post up there -----^...Being in a position where i've done a show that was tracked on several markets...it sucks!!! you can't fake laugh at a joke and have it sound real or divulge real information so it sounds genuine. Maybe I'm not a fish and my memory lasts longer than a ramp or a music bed...point being tracking makes people lazy which causes people to lose interest which enables the talent pool to get weaker. But it's done more in Medium and Smaller markets.
 
Exactly right. VT requires a completely different mindset. I did it for a couple of years and never once really enjoyed it. It doesn't give talent the rush that a live show does. It feels more like a task than a show. To me it's like the difference between talking to a friend on the phone and leaving them a voicemail. Talking to them is fun but leaving them a message is just something you do quickly and then hang up. VT is like leaving the listener 5 voicemails every hour but never actually talking to them. The way that most stations use VT, it just isn't a very stimulating thing to do, and that comes through to the listeners. I've only ever worked with one person who was really good at VT. Her shows sounded fantastic because she really understood how to take advantage of the VT technology, and she did things that you would need 5 hands and 2 mouths to do if you worked alone on a live shift. Here's the difference though: She would spend 4 hours tracking a 5 hour show. Hardly any stations will give a jock that much time to track a show.
 
beef said:
There's this distance thats created by not living in that city or not being live that old jocks havent learned to overcome.
Click to expand...

Old jocks! Geeze what an insult. I've been in radio since 1976 and started at an automated station. We were never pegged as automated by
people because we worked quite hard at making our shows sound live. Up until last year I was made to VT my weekend show and nobody knew it wasn't live. I prepped the show just like any other live show and worked just as hard if not more to make it sound perfect. Many "old jocks" know how to VT a show as well or better than newbies. If you do a half assed job live or VT'd it shows. I'll take Bobby Ocean VT'd on XM any day over a live jock that hasn't a clue... By the way, I've tracked shows for stations 8 states away and again, nobody on the other end ever knew I wasn't there. You just have to do your homework by finding out as much as you can about that city and it's populace. You also need to find out how the locals pronounce names of streets, districts, people etc. It's a lot of work, but that's the way "older" jocks have always done it!
 
beef said:
There's this distance thats created by not living in that city or not being live that old jocks havent learned to overcome.
Click to expand...
I should add that I really hate voice tracking, but in this day and age if you have to do it to work and feed your family, you do it!
 
With two hours prep time and 20 min. to voice track, that puts a 5-hour show at 2.5 hours work time. Still a savings of time but if a PD or manager thinks that you can whip out a 5-hour show in 20 minutes, you can, it just woun't include up to date content.

Newsperson
 
As with everything in life, that depends. If the talent is in the station (say, a Music Director), he/she can pop in and delete a couple tracks between other tasks, and do live breaks for contests, a phoner, or other up to the second content (like a live time check.)

I am no proponent of VT'ing, but doing this in addition to actual prep makes it sound pretty live to a large percentage of the listeners.

Of course, if the management just wants the talent to knock it out in 20 minutes with no prep time and no live breaks (say the talent has been cut to PT and is only there a couple days a week), it is a lot more obviously prerecorded to the listeners. This mindset kills off the connection with the listener that radio has always used to it's advantage over TV, etc. With all the buzz of the internet, etc, you would think management would want to capitalize on this one huge advantage radio has always had, but it seems to have blown right past them in the rush to save money.
 
SF Static said:

"If the talent is in the station (say, a Music Director), he/she can pop in and delete a couple tracks between other tasks, and do live breaks for contests, a phoner, or other up to the second content (like a live time check.). I am no proponent of VT'ing, but doing this in addition to actual prep makes it sound pretty live to a large percentage of the listeners.

Of course, if the management just wants the talent to knock it out in 20 minutes with no prep time and no live breaks (say the talent has been cut to PT and is only there a couple days a week), it is a lot more obviously prerecorded to the listeners. This mindset kills off the connection with the listener that radio has always used to it's advantage over TV, etc. With all the buzz of the internet, etc, you would think management would want to capitalize on this one huge advantage radio has always had, but it seems to have blown right past them in the rush to save money."

Exactly - I'm not knocking McPeake particularly - he's probably a stand-up hard working guy trying to support himself in a difficult industry with no job security. I'm perfectly willing to blame the evil Satan Clear Channel like everyone else. My point is - why even pretend to have an "afternoon drive" DJ. Automated radio is not new. Before FM got popular in the early 70s, the only live FMs were the album rock FM stations, and many of them were automated outside of drive times. Most stations (like "Beautiful Music") just ran pre-recorded tapes with an pre-recorded announcer. Others were more sophisticated and used the computer technology of that day. Bill Drake ("Boss Radio") marketed a couple of automated formats nationwide - "Hit Parade" (soft rock hits), and later "Solid Gold" (Oldies). He used the Los Angeles Boss Jocks to ID all the songs, and provide some content - all mixed together, not in separate time blocks. So you'd hear the Real Don Steele ID one song, and Sam Ridlle or somebody else might do the next one. Names were never mentioned, so outside of LA, nobody would have known the announcers.

The individual station and frequency was IDed in drop-ins only before commercials, along with the current time. I assume that was the computerized part that involved some technology. Weather reports were dropped in every 15 mintues or so, along with news headlines. All in all, it was a pretty slick format, and sounded better than the low rent voice-tracking I hear nowadays. In LA, the station was KHJ-FM, which later went live as K-Earth. There was probably a Bay Area equivalent.

It seem like they could produce much better voice-tracked shows given today's more sophisticated technology ...if they gave a d--n. From what I understand, DJs on the satellite stations are doing just that - I doubt many of them do their shows live.
 
True, Hit Parade and Solid Gold sounded pretty decent at the time (and ran on clunky automations with pin clocks, cart carosels, and giant reel to reel machines...when stuff got out of sync it was a train wreck...that much hasn't changed with computers!) Even then, taking a Hit Parade station live in a smaller market with college kids who sounded like such, the numbers shot up compared to the auto format.

I wouldn't want to give them any ideas...originally, some of the big companies wanted to "hub & spoke" voice tracking from larger markets to small ones. Not a bad concept if you take the time to do it right, but no one wanted to pay the talent what it was worth to work the long days required, so it kind of evolved into the crap voice tracking you hear most places now. BUT, it enabled one company to lay off what was rumored to be about 3,000 jocks nationwide, so they could hire 800 more sales people.
 
Not to sound old because I'm barely in my mid 20's but ---you guys remember the days when you had to have some kind of talent to "run a tight board?" Just thinking about my first experience with radio when i would have to cue up a big ass reel to reel for mixshows and have to have all my legal id and mixer drop carts ready to roll and make it all sound clean. I took pride in that because i knew it was the beginning of a greater cause
 
Talk about the days...I remember back in the 70's at KNBR/KYUU the air talent would sit and read a newspaper and at the right moment raise his/her finger into the air to let the board op on the other side of the glass know it was time to cue the cart ohhh the days of NBC radio.
 
Very interesting discussion. But, a little perspective...the big salaries of 30-40 years ago existed during an era when radio was important to most consumers. Today the fragmentation of all media has made radio less important, and consequently, the salaries will probably never equal what they used to be. And has been mentioned above, the Bay Area cost of living is certainly an important facet of this discussion.

Bottom line, many quality radio performers today would rather work in medium or even small markets where they can afford to live, and in many cases are more appreciated by their owners and GM's. Doesn't apply to all, but this is the trend and my guess it will continue in the coming decades. In 1975, you knew you were listening to a big market station. Today, not so much.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom