• 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

WJAS

Parttimer said:
Talk_Dude said:
The 20's, 30's, and 40's, when network radio was the #1 entertainment medium in the nation. When shows like these dominated the airwaves. That was the Golden Age of radio.

By that logic then, the height of TV as a medium was when we had 3 channels.

What the hell are you talking about?

Why are you the only one who doesn't understand most of what's written here? Aside from some textbook definition, which appears to be what you've cited, no one else on this board considers radio to have been at its best when it had no competition. By your logic, the TV of the 60's with 3 networks and a few programs in color would be the golden age of TV.

What does the number of networks have to do with the caliber of the programming? The Golden Age of Radio was when radio was at its best. It has nothing to do with how many networks there were. The Golden Age of Radio was not when there was nothing on the air other than disc jockeys playing records.
 
Talk_Dude said:
The Golden Age of Radio was not when there was nothing on the air other than disc jockeys playing records.

Why are you here? you don't appear to like much of anything that's been on the radio in the last 60 years, what exactly do you bring to the discussion besides argument and sarcasm?
 
Parttimer said:
Talk_Dude said:
The Golden Age of Radio was not when there was nothing on the air other than disc jockeys playing records.

Why are you here? you don't appear to like much of anything that's been on the radio in the last 60 years, what exactly do you bring to the discussion besides argument and sarcasm?

Everybody has to be someplace. As for what I bring to the discussion, I bring argument and sarcasm.

Also, you are totally mistaken about what I like. I have often praised what I used to hear on WDVE and WYDD. I've praised "Underground Explosion" on WZUM and Brother Love on WAMO-FM in the 1960's. I've said many good things about KQV-FM when they first started the "Love" package with John Rygren 24/7 using primitive voice tracking technology. I've had good things to say about Quinn and Rose. I've praised Myron Cope. I've said good things about how funny O'Brien and Gary were, as well as how much I used to like Rege Cordic.

I like "A Prairie Home Companion", "Fresh Air", "Car Talk", and "Whad'Ya Know?". I don't much care for "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me".

You just get pissed off because I don't like the same things that you like.
 
Talk_Dude said:
The 20's, 30's, and 40's, when network radio was the #1 entertainment medium in the nation. When shows like these dominated the airwaves. That was the Golden Age of radio.

I happen to agree with this comment.

There are also a number of people who feel that the period covering the late 1950s (when the Top 40 format
was developed) to the early 1970s (when music fragmented and FM began to take over) was the Golden Age
of Music Radio -- or at least the Golden Age of Music On AM Radio -- and I am inclined to agree with that as
well.

And there are some who feel that the late 1940s and early 1950s, when Milton Berle drew an 80 share of the
audience, and dramas telecast LIVE from New York City peppered the programming schedule, was television's
Golden Age. I think there have been several "golden ages," but those people have a case, too.

C.
 
Parttimer said:
Everyone who wants to hear standards is over 80....

Well, not entirely. But that audience is, like or not, dying off. The modern ballads are becoming the new standards, and artists like Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra, and the like will still have a place in the evolving format. However, they won't be the core artists. Only their chartbusters will be played and their "lesser" hits will not. Your core artists on this format would be Bread, Barbra Streisand, Michael Buble, and (gag) Celine Dion.
 
Before Facebook, Cell Phones, Twitter, and every other permutation, Top 40 radio in the Sixties was one of the great uniting factors of young people that cut across most socio-economic boundaries. Who in Pittsburgh who was a teen in the Sixties did not have some connection to KQV? Even super geeks and the tough "cats" probably mostly listened.
 
Parttimer said:
OK, I stand corrected. With the exception of Quinn and Rose, and the NPR stuff, you only hate the last 40 years of radio.

I see math isn't your strongest subject, is it? WDVE and WYDD were at the peak of their AOR form in the 1970's. O'Brien and Gary were at their peak in the 70's. The 70's were 30-something years ago, not 40. I mentioned Myron Cope, whose career lasted until less than 10 years ago. I mentioned Quinn and Rose, who are currently on the air. I didn't mention WRRK, but I liked it right up until it changed to "Bob".

Why are you so obsessed with what I do and don't like? Why do you have to exaggerate everything I say I dislike or don't care for as "hate"? Are you some sort of obsessed cyber-stalker? Do I have to fear for my personal safety if I visit family in Pittsburgh for the holidays?
 
Nobody had mentioned that the "top 40"format actualy saved radio as an advertising medium. rock and roll and top 40 bought radio back from life support in the early and mid 50s . up until that most big broadcasters had pretty much written radio off becuase of the explosion of TV
 
loeper said:
Nobody had mentioned that the "top 40" format actualy saved radio as an advertising medium. rock and roll and top 40 bought radio back from life support in the early and mid 50s . up until that most big broadcasters had pretty much written radio off becuase of the explosion of TV.

Quite true. Crosley, as I recall, sold off their stations in 1953-54 because they considered radio to be a dead
medium. It took Todd Storz, Gordon McLendon, and a new generation of broadcasters to make radio relevant
again.

Now, with music available from such a wide variety of sources, I wonder where the next Storz or McLendon is,
and if we will find him in time.

C.
 
loeper said:
Nobody had mentioned that the "top 40"format actualy saved radio as an advertising medium. rock and roll and top 40 bought radio back from life support in the early and mid 50s . up until that most big broadcasters had pretty much written radio off becuase of the explosion of TV

That's quite correct. It seems whenever anything that catering to the public's taste is eclipsed by something new, then the old thing has to either adapt or die. Radio managed to survive by transitioning from it's Golden Age to a new Silver Age, based on low-cost programming. But before you give too much credit to the development of rock and roll and Top 40 radio, bear in mind that it took a combination of several factors, all of which were needed for rock and roll Top 40 radio to succeed as it did.

First, it required the Baby Boom. There were a lot of babies born during and right after World War II, who became the teenagers of the 1950's.

Second, it required a high level of economic prosperity, most of which was the result of converting the factories built during World War II to make weapons to making consumer goods. This gave families disposable income which allowed teenagers a degree of economic freedom unknown in prior decades.

Third, it took the invention of the transistor by William Shockley, Walter Houser Brattain, and John Bardeen at the Bell Labs, and the subsequent use of transistors to create portable, battery powered radios that teenagers could use to listen to rock and roll Top 40 radio. Think about it. Can anyone claim that rock and roll on the radio would become a mass market sensation among teenagers if they could only hear it on the family Philco in the living room?

Fourth, it took the development of the 45 rpm microgroove vinyl records and record players to replace the old 78 rpm platters that had dominated recorded music for over four decades. And, to that you can also add all the developments in recording technology, including recording to tape in the studio instead of having to record direct to disc. Would rock and roll singles ever have taken off if they were on flimsy, shellac 78's that had to be played on the old Victrola that was located next to the family Philco?

Finally, it took a few people with some vision, imagination, and a lot of luck to experiment with combining all of the elements.

I admit I probably left out a few things, like Leo Fender inventing the Stratocaster and the Precision Bass and Les Paul working with the luthiers at Gibson to develop his signature guitar. Or, there's the development of high fidelity sound with multiple speakers and crossover networks that led to good sounding, loud guitar amplifiers.

So, you're correct that the Top 40 format saved radio as an advertising medium, but it took a combination of many things happening at the same time for it to happen. It wasn't a sure thing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom