It's obvious by reading many of the posts below that Oldies radio as we've known it is dying or is already dead. So why are some posters offended when satellite radio is mentioned on this board? It IS an Oldies board. And satellite provides Oldies just the way we want to hear them. So what's the problem? Does terrestrial radio actually think that Oldies listeners will switch to another one of their weak formats?
-
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.
Why The Offense?
- Thread starter TheFonz
- Start date
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Why?
I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck, I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies should be done like the satellite stations do it because that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as local as FM or AM).
> It's obvious by reading many of the posts below that Oldies
> radio as we've known it is dying or is already dead. So
> why are some posters offended when satellite radio is
> mentioned on this board? It IS an Oldies board. And
> satellite provides Oldies just the way we want to hear them.
> So what's the problem? Does terrestrial radio actually
> think that Oldies listeners will switch to another one of
> their weak formats?
>
I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck, I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies should be done like the satellite stations do it because that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as local as FM or AM).
> It's obvious by reading many of the posts below that Oldies
> radio as we've known it is dying or is already dead. So
> why are some posters offended when satellite radio is
> mentioned on this board? It IS an Oldies board. And
> satellite provides Oldies just the way we want to hear them.
> So what's the problem? Does terrestrial radio actually
> think that Oldies listeners will switch to another one of
> their weak formats?
>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Why?
> I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as local
> as FM or AM).
I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather selfish statement ... but when those same people come back and continue to post, then eventually post something like "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are you still here thinking your rants are going to magically change the way it is programmed?"
Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio is somehow mentally inferior to them.
If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's post.)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as local
> as FM or AM).
I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather selfish statement ... but when those same people come back and continue to post, then eventually post something like "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are you still here thinking your rants are going to magically change the way it is programmed?"
Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio is somehow mentally inferior to them.
If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's post.)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Why?
totally agree
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
>
totally agree
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
>
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
Re: Why?
> > I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> > "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> > course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> > I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> > better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> > should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> > that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as
> local
> > as FM or AM).
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
I just have this to say about satellite: it's nice, and I like hearing some lesser played things.
But even small playlists pervade there too. Even before Barry Cowsill was found dead (R.I.P.), the XM 60s oldies channel had played "Indian Lake" twice inside of two days--and at the same hour both times. The Soul Street channel isn't much better.
So, here's my take--I haven't given up on terrestrial; for Christ's sake, I'm still on-air (at FM 88.9, the Sunday Oldies Jukebox. Online at same address with a "www" in front, and a ".com" in back. Who sells better than me, huh?). But, I have decided that the best position to be in is to have more resources from which to learn.
I have to say, though, musically XM is a treat, but radio-wise, it is very subpar. They can do SO much better.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 01/09/06 11:50 PM.</FONT></P>
> > I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> > "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> > course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> > I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> > better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> > should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> > that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as
> local
> > as FM or AM).
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
I just have this to say about satellite: it's nice, and I like hearing some lesser played things.
But even small playlists pervade there too. Even before Barry Cowsill was found dead (R.I.P.), the XM 60s oldies channel had played "Indian Lake" twice inside of two days--and at the same hour both times. The Soul Street channel isn't much better.
So, here's my take--I haven't given up on terrestrial; for Christ's sake, I'm still on-air (at FM 88.9, the Sunday Oldies Jukebox. Online at same address with a "www" in front, and a ".com" in back. Who sells better than me, huh?). But, I have decided that the best position to be in is to have more resources from which to learn.
I have to say, though, musically XM is a treat, but radio-wise, it is very subpar. They can do SO much better.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 01/09/06 11:50 PM.</FONT></P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
> But even small playlists pervade there too. Even before
> Barry Cowsill was found dead (R.I.P.), the XM 60s oldies
> channel had played "Indian Lake" twice inside of two
> days--and at the same hour both times. The Soul Street
> channel isn't much better.
There is no excuse for that. Whatever software they are using to schedule music obviously hasn't had its rules set up properly.
With the proper rules, a "lunar" category of songs that you want to drop in for accents will never repeat a song in the same hour for a year.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> But even small playlists pervade there too. Even before
> Barry Cowsill was found dead (R.I.P.), the XM 60s oldies
> channel had played "Indian Lake" twice inside of two
> days--and at the same hour both times. The Soul Street
> channel isn't much better.
There is no excuse for that. Whatever software they are using to schedule music obviously hasn't had its rules set up properly.
With the proper rules, a "lunar" category of songs that you want to drop in for accents will never repeat a song in the same hour for a year.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
>
> There is no excuse for that. Whatever software they are
> using to schedule music obviously hasn't had its rules set
> up properly.
>
> With the proper rules, a "lunar" category of songs that you
> want to drop in for accents will never repeat a song in the
> same hour for a year.
>
I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
>
> There is no excuse for that. Whatever software they are
> using to schedule music obviously hasn't had its rules set
> up properly.
>
> With the proper rules, a "lunar" category of songs that you
> want to drop in for accents will never repeat a song in the
> same hour for a year.
>
I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
Re: Why?
> > I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> > "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> > course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> > I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> > better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> > should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> > that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as
> local
> > as FM or AM).
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
>
Cat' and Mr. Richards both bring up good points.
Moving in a slightly different direction, we have to remember that there will be a lot of people not willing to pay for satellite radio. A majority of listeners (I'm sure David Eduardo or someone else can give out some numbers and statements) will simply listen to CDs or something.
> > I think the suggestion is often done in the spirit of
> > "satellite does this, so should Oldies", which is, of
> > course, ridiculous. It's also, "terrestrial Oldies suck,
> > I've switched to Sirriis/XM". Well, if it's that much
> > better, go for it--but don't post here telling us Oldies
> > should be done like the satellite stations do it because
> > that's impossible (as impossible as satellite being as
> local
> > as FM or AM).
>
> I would go a little further than that. I perceive a lot of
> the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't
> program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
> to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
> selfish statement ... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"
>
> Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.
>
> If someone wants to spend the money for XM or Sirius, that
> is their choice. But to continue, after that, to criticize
> terrestrial radio, as if they have now been ordained as an
> expert because they listen to satellite radio, is annoying
> as hell. (Which is what I was thinking as I read Cat's
> post.)
>
Cat' and Mr. Richards both bring up good points.
Moving in a slightly different direction, we have to remember that there will be a lot of people not willing to pay for satellite radio. A majority of listeners (I'm sure David Eduardo or someone else can give out some numbers and statements) will simply listen to CDs or something.
Re: Why?
[I perceive a lot of the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
selfish statement]
It may be unrealistic, but it certainly isn't selfish. If a grocery store doesn't carry the items I want to buy, I find a different store. That's what choice and competition are all about.
[... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"]
Most of the "rants" I've read are in response to other posters' total frustration over what their terrestrial radio stations sound like.
>
> [Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.]
Since you probably work in terestrial radio, those implications may be oversensitivity on your part. "Info" is part of the title of this board. Many terrestrial radio listeners have no idea how the programming differs between the two types of radio. Oldies fans deserve to get that information on an Oldies radio board.
[I perceive a lot of the pro-satellite posts as being "if terrestrial radio won't program precisely the songs that I want I'm going to listen
to satellite instead". Which, in and of itself, is a rather
selfish statement]
It may be unrealistic, but it certainly isn't selfish. If a grocery store doesn't carry the items I want to buy, I find a different store. That's what choice and competition are all about.
[... but when those same people come back
> and continue to post, then eventually post something like
> "that's why I listen to my satellite radio instead" it makes
> me think "you already gave up on terrestrial radio, why are
> you still here thinking your rants are going to magically
> change the way it is programmed?"]
Most of the "rants" I've read are in response to other posters' total frustration over what their terrestrial radio stations sound like.
>
> [Then there are the borderline offensive ones who imply from
> their tone that anyone who doesn't listen to satellite radio
> is somehow mentally inferior to them.]
Since you probably work in terestrial radio, those implications may be oversensitivity on your part. "Info" is part of the title of this board. Many terrestrial radio listeners have no idea how the programming differs between the two types of radio. Oldies fans deserve to get that information on an Oldies radio board.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
> I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just
> because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make
> for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much
> and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
I agree, Bobby, and that makes it obvious that XM isn't doing the job they could be doing, programming-wise.
Manually editing the logs, as you suggest, still requires that there be rules so that -- as the example suggested -- you don't overplay a song in the same daypart (or, as the example said, the same hour) too often.
Is there actually a programmer at XM?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just
> because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make
> for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much
> and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
I agree, Bobby, and that makes it obvious that XM isn't doing the job they could be doing, programming-wise.
Manually editing the logs, as you suggest, still requires that there be rules so that -- as the example suggested -- you don't overplay a song in the same daypart (or, as the example said, the same hour) too often.
Is there actually a programmer at XM?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Programming
You are one of the few, my friend. Radio is full of Programmers who either pay little attention to their rotations or pass it on to an assistant.
The music we play is THE most important reason a listener will or won't listen to us, yet the art of music scheduling is normally way down the list for many PDs (after meeting with record guys, surfing the net and having hour-long aircheck marathons to justify their jobs).
>
>
> I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just
> because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make
> for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much
> and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
>
You are one of the few, my friend. Radio is full of Programmers who either pay little attention to their rotations or pass it on to an assistant.
The music we play is THE most important reason a listener will or won't listen to us, yet the art of music scheduling is normally way down the list for many PDs (after meeting with record guys, surfing the net and having hour-long aircheck marathons to justify their jobs).
>
>
> I always go thru logs and manually edit them anyway. Just
> because a sequence of songs follows the rules doesn't make
> for good sounding music sweep. Tighten the rules too much
> and you end up with lots of "unscheduled" positions.
>
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
Re: Programming
> You are one of the few, my friend. Radio is full of
> Programmers who either pay little attention to their
> rotations or pass it on to an assistant.
>
> The music we play is THE most important reason a listener
> will or won't listen to us, yet the art of music scheduling
> is normally way down the list for many PDs (after meeting
> with record guys, surfing the net and having hour-long
> aircheck marathons to justify their jobs).
Not just rotation, but also in this technological day and age, you gotta check your source files for level balance, timing, corruption, etc.
Where's Paul Drew and his ear piece when you need him?
The PD's normal cry (channelling Mel Brooks): "We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen. We must do something about this, immediately, immediately, immediately!"
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 01/10/06 03:58 PM.</FONT></P>
> You are one of the few, my friend. Radio is full of
> Programmers who either pay little attention to their
> rotations or pass it on to an assistant.
>
> The music we play is THE most important reason a listener
> will or won't listen to us, yet the art of music scheduling
> is normally way down the list for many PDs (after meeting
> with record guys, surfing the net and having hour-long
> aircheck marathons to justify their jobs).
Not just rotation, but also in this technological day and age, you gotta check your source files for level balance, timing, corruption, etc.
Where's Paul Drew and his ear piece when you need him?
The PD's normal cry (channelling Mel Brooks): "We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen. We must do something about this, immediately, immediately, immediately!"
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 01/10/06 03:58 PM.</FONT></P>
Re: Programming
>
> Not just rotation, but also in this technological day and
> age, you gotta check your source files for level balance,
> timing, corruption, etc.
>
Agreed...I've always been anal about dubbing songs into the automation. I make sure all intro levels are consistent from song to song, and that end markers are where a good jock would hit the next element...often on a beat. Our stations are voicetracked much of the time, so there's no one to ride gain on an intro. I'm lucky to have a production director who pays equal attention to spots and production elements. Too many PDs are lazy & just rip CDs into the system & figure the processing will take care of it.
>
> Not just rotation, but also in this technological day and
> age, you gotta check your source files for level balance,
> timing, corruption, etc.
>
Agreed...I've always been anal about dubbing songs into the automation. I make sure all intro levels are consistent from song to song, and that end markers are where a good jock would hit the next element...often on a beat. Our stations are voicetracked much of the time, so there's no one to ride gain on an intro. I'm lucky to have a production director who pays equal attention to spots and production elements. Too many PDs are lazy & just rip CDs into the system & figure the processing will take care of it.
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
> [Manually editing the logs, as you suggest, still requires
> that there be rules so that -- as the example suggested --
> you don't overplay a song in the same daypart (or, as the
> example said, the same hour) too often.
>
> Is there actually a programmer at XM?]
Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets to the table.
> [Manually editing the logs, as you suggest, still requires
> that there be rules so that -- as the example suggested --
> you don't overplay a song in the same daypart (or, as the
> example said, the same hour) too often.
>
> Is there actually a programmer at XM?]
Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets to the table.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
> Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares
> how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets
> to the table.
Bad analogy, but let me turn it against you anyway.
I have several pizza places within delivery distance of me. I will not order from a couple of them because their sauce is too spicy. One got crossed off my list because they skimp on cheese. And another because they skimped on toppings.
I care how the pizza is made. Just as I care about how any station I program or consult is programmed. In both cases, it is the end product that matter.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares
> how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets
> to the table.
Bad analogy, but let me turn it against you anyway.
I have several pizza places within delivery distance of me. I will not order from a couple of them because their sauce is too spicy. One got crossed off my list because they skimp on cheese. And another because they skimped on toppings.
I care how the pizza is made. Just as I care about how any station I program or consult is programmed. In both cases, it is the end product that matter.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
[In both cases, it is the end product that matter.]
Then we agree. As a consumer, you know a good pizza when you taste it. You shouldn't care how it got that way. As a consumer, I know good radio when I hear it. I don't care how it got that way.
[In both cases, it is the end product that matter.]
Then we agree. As a consumer, you know a good pizza when you taste it. You shouldn't care how it got that way. As a consumer, I know good radio when I hear it. I don't care how it got that way.
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
> Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares
> how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets
> to the table.
I am a "radio people," and it was my comment about XM's rotation that got this subthread started. My whole point was that while XM is a cut above some stale terrestrial programming now, it is not perfect...and I would venture doesn't "taste great".
And, since it doesn't, then I do care how it's made. I'm not going to write XM off because of it--it's not a deal-breaker--but I will tune out more regularly than I otherwise would.
For that reason, I want to know what's wrong and what XM will do to fix it. Rotation is a situation; distant jocks are a situation (and I know they're national, but they sound even more distant); there aren't enough jocks; and there's too much extraneous crap (cross-promos, hullabaloo, cluttered "program matter" as Rick Sklar used to call it--re-done jingles, drops ins, etc.). Sometimes the 60s channel makes WABC circa 1964 look downright AOR-laid back.
I guess I'm not a great commercial for satellite, am I?
> Aren't you radio people being a little anal? No one cares
> how a pizza is made. Just so it tastes great when it gets
> to the table.
I am a "radio people," and it was my comment about XM's rotation that got this subthread started. My whole point was that while XM is a cut above some stale terrestrial programming now, it is not perfect...and I would venture doesn't "taste great".
And, since it doesn't, then I do care how it's made. I'm not going to write XM off because of it--it's not a deal-breaker--but I will tune out more regularly than I otherwise would.
For that reason, I want to know what's wrong and what XM will do to fix it. Rotation is a situation; distant jocks are a situation (and I know they're national, but they sound even more distant); there aren't enough jocks; and there's too much extraneous crap (cross-promos, hullabaloo, cluttered "program matter" as Rick Sklar used to call it--re-done jingles, drops ins, etc.). Sometimes the 60s channel makes WABC circa 1964 look downright AOR-laid back.
I guess I'm not a great commercial for satellite, am I?
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
[Rotation is a situation; distant jocks
> are a situation (and I know they're national, but they sound
> even more distant); there aren't enough jocks; and there's
> too much extraneous crap (cross-promos, hullabaloo,
> cluttered "program matter" as Rick Sklar used to call
> it--re-done jingles, drops ins, etc.). Sometimes the 60s
> channel makes WABC circa 1964 look downright AOR-laid back.]
From a listener's standpoint, your critique is way too detailed for me. Maybe XM sounds great because my market has been without '50s/early '60s for so long. Kinda like that pizza..........if you haven't had one for a couple of years, ANY pizza tastes great. I'm guessing that a lot of other listeners feel the same way.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TheFonz on 01/11/06 01:15 AM.</FONT></P>
[Rotation is a situation; distant jocks
> are a situation (and I know they're national, but they sound
> even more distant); there aren't enough jocks; and there's
> too much extraneous crap (cross-promos, hullabaloo,
> cluttered "program matter" as Rick Sklar used to call
> it--re-done jingles, drops ins, etc.). Sometimes the 60s
> channel makes WABC circa 1964 look downright AOR-laid back.]
From a listener's standpoint, your critique is way too detailed for me. Maybe XM sounds great because my market has been without '50s/early '60s for so long. Kinda like that pizza..........if you haven't had one for a couple of years, ANY pizza tastes great. I'm guessing that a lot of other listeners feel the same way.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TheFonz on 01/11/06 01:15 AM.</FONT></P>
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
>
> From a listener's standpoint, your critique is way too
> detailed for me. Maybe XM sounds great because my market has
> been without '50s/early '60s for so long. Kinda like that
> pizza..........if you haven't had one for a couple of years,
> ANY pizza tastes great. I'm guessing that a lot of other
> listeners feel the same way.
But you kind of made his point...yeah you like it, but you admit it's the only game in town. That's a lot different than saying they're doing a great job. It's like the old line "no one's ugly at 2am".
>
> From a listener's standpoint, your critique is way too
> detailed for me. Maybe XM sounds great because my market has
> been without '50s/early '60s for so long. Kinda like that
> pizza..........if you haven't had one for a couple of years,
> ANY pizza tastes great. I'm guessing that a lot of other
> listeners feel the same way.
But you kind of made his point...yeah you like it, but you admit it's the only game in town. That's a lot different than saying they're doing a great job. It's like the old line "no one's ugly at 2am".
Re: Basic Programming Knowledge Lacking at XM, Perhaps?
[But you kind of made his point...yeah you like it, but you
> admit it's the only game in town. That's a lot different
> than saying they're doing a great job. It's like the old
> line "no one's ugly at 2am".]
You could be right. Or maybe commercial radio has been so bad for so long that I forgot what good radio should sound like. I like what I hear on satellite much better than what I've heard on commercial radio for a long time. But maybe that's not saying much.
[But you kind of made his point...yeah you like it, but you
> admit it's the only game in town. That's a lot different
> than saying they're doing a great job. It's like the old
> line "no one's ugly at 2am".]
You could be right. Or maybe commercial radio has been so bad for so long that I forgot what good radio should sound like. I like what I hear on satellite much better than what I've heard on commercial radio for a long time. But maybe that's not saying much.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.