• 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

Worst AM Band

K

KlassikKountry

Guest
This city will now have the worst AM band in the country. No Classic Oldies, Standards, Classic Country or Beautiful Music. I think one or maybe more of these formats could exist on AM. All there will be on the air Monday is Sports, Religious, Hate Spewing and Liberal Talk and News. Unless you factor in 640 for music, the band is dead. Heck the FM band is not much better, its just an urban wasteland.
 
> This city will now have the worst AM band in the country.
> No Classic Oldies, Standards, Classic Country or Beautiful
> Music. I think one or maybe more of these formats could
> exist on AM. All there will be on the air Monday is Sports,
> Religious, Hate Spewing and Liberal Talk and News. Unless
> you factor in 640 for music, the band is dead. Heck the FM
> band is not much better, its just an urban wasteland.
>
Its like that in every big city. You have to go way out in the sticks to find music (or English) on AM anymore.
 
Re: Why AM?

> Its like that in every big city. You have to go way out in
> the sticks to find music (or English) on AM anymore.
>
Honestly, and I am not trying to be ignorant nor funny nor both, what is the appeal with AM and music? Nostalgia? With so many technological opportunities today why would anyone want to listen to music on an AM signal? I don't think that even the cheapest of cars come with an AM only radio anymore.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Wexler on 10/01/05 11:53 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Why AM?

Nostalgia is a big part of it for radio enthusiasts like me, but I have my own reason. For me and AM Radio, if you grew up with it, you don't outgrow it. Most of the big hits of the Top 40 era, were mixed onto records specifically to sound good on radio...and since AM was the medium that exposed and "sold" music, if you will, these were meant to sound big and cut through on AM Radio. The same records sound thinner and less verile on FM. I've heard great records that sounded big on WFIL and WIBG, sound limp on WOGL. At one point, I set a button on my AM radio for Radio Disney to hear what current CHR records sound like in the dynamic of AM. Again, this is just ME.
 
Re: Why AM?

Gotta agree with you on the FM Oldies situation. Early and mid-60's Motown sounds mushy on CD. You put that on AM HD, man does it sounds worse than on FM.

The Beach Boys Brian Wilson did not know he should record in stereo.

The 4 Seasons VeeJay product was in stereo. After moving to Philips, it was mushy sounding mono, much like the 4 Tops. 50's era R&R was often thin sounding. This is why I thought Oldies would work on AM. One factor of FM finally dropping 50's and early 60's R&R is that sound factor. But it justed hasn't worked on AM, where I thought it certainly would.

Like you, the nostalgia of growing up with Top 40 on AM gets me to even listen to 640 once in awhile. Sometimes, I even like the music! I miss music on AM, but the sound hardly justifies even trying anymore.




> Nostalgia is a big part of it for radio enthusiasts like me,
> but I have my own reason. For me and AM Radio, if you grew
> up with it, you don't outgrow it. Most of the big hits of
> the Top 40 era, were mixed onto records specifically to
> sound good on radio...and since AM was the medium that
> exposed and "sold" music, if you will, these were meant to
> sound big and cut through on AM Radio. The same records
> sound thinner and less verile on FM. I've heard great
> records that sounded big on WFIL and WIBG, sound limp on
> WOGL. At one point, I set a button on my AM radio for Radio
> Disney to hear what current CHR records sound like in the
> dynamic of AM. Again, this is just ME.
>
 
Re: Why AM?

You are right. By law since 1976, all car radios and other radio worth $15. or more must include FM.

I don't
> think that even the cheapest of cars come with an AM only
> radio anymore.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Why AM?

I heard the singles were mixed for results on the jukebox. They were recorded extra loud so they would blast out of the jukebox. I have not heard about AM radio being a factor in the mixing of recordings.


> Nostalgia is a big part of it for radio enthusiasts like me,
> but I have my own reason. For me and AM Radio, if you grew
> up with it, you don't outgrow it. Most of the big hits of
> the Top 40 era, were mixed onto records specifically to
> sound good on radio...and since AM was the medium that
> exposed and "sold" music, if you will, these were meant to
> sound big and cut through on AM Radio. The same records
> sound thinner and less verile on FM. I've heard great
> records that sounded big on WFIL and WIBG, sound limp on
> WOGL. At one point, I set a button on my AM radio for Radio
> Disney to hear what current CHR records sound like in the
> dynamic of AM. Again, this is just ME.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
I will take the product over the presentation

Which means, if I had the choice, I would rather hear the wide variety of classic oldies on Mono AMish WMID, than the repititious STEREO music that is on WOGL. I do remember the old WCAU-FM, when they went stereo, while still playing many obscure and "oh wow" cuts they still maintained that great stereo separation. For example; all the Beach Boys, in particular "Don't Worry Baby", Turtles, Buckinghams, Hollies, Monkees, Beatles, a few Stones tunes, Tommy Roe, these songs were cut in magnificent separation along with many, many others. You just do not get that separation with CD's, I think Diamond Jim pulled the music from the old LP's at the time in the early 70's. Those LP's were available in either mono or stereo which made the stereo LP's, full stereo. Now that was great listening, when you could cut out the vocals on one channel or the instruments on the other.
 
> Heck the FM
> band is not much better, its just an urban wasteland.

NOT URBAN:
92.5
94.1
94.5
95.7
98.1
99.5
101.1
102.1
102.9
104.5
106.1
106.9
 
Re: Why AM?

> > Its like that in every big city. You have to go way out
> in
> > the sticks to find music (or English) on AM anymore.
> >
> Honestly, and I am not trying to be ignorant nor funny nor
> both, what is the appeal with AM and music? Nostalgia?
> With so many technological opportunities today why would
> anyone want to listen to music on an AM signal? I don't
> think that even the cheapest of cars come with an AM only
> radio anymore.
>

A) Signal - on a good radio, AM stations can have a better coverage area with the same power output when compared to a FM station (dial position and signal pattern does come into play though). I can get KYW in Lewistown PA in the daytime on a GE SR3.

B) Yes, nostalga. Listening to a song on WHTT vs KB 1520 may bring back memories for some....<P ID="signature">______________

AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.125.155:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
 
Re: I will take the product over the presentation

> You just do not get that separation with
> CD's, I think Diamond Jim pulled the music from the old LP's
> at the time in the early 70's.

Many CD re-releases of '60s Oldies do not sound as good as the original 45s and LPs, because of deterioration of the master tapes by the time the CDs were made. And in an attempt to cover up the flaws of a master tape that has become dull and hissy, they often "remaster" the audio with lots of high-end EQ and compression, to try to recreate the lost clarity of the original recording, but it just ends up sounding over-processed and dynamically lifeless.

That's why it's difficult to assemble a high-quality library of '50s/'60s Oldies these days -- you have to sample many different sources just to find the best version of each particular song, since the quality varies so much. And some songs were pretty lousy-sounding to begin with, such as Doris Troy's "Just One Look" (very dull and muffled) or "Deep Purple" by Nino Tempo & April Stevens (lots of IM distortion on the vocals).
<P ID="signature">______________
noiboc.jpg
</P>
 
> > Heck the FM
> > band is not much better, its just an urban wasteland.
>
> NOT URBAN:
> 92.5
> 94.1
> 94.5
> 95.7
> 98.1
> 99.5
> 101.1
> 102.1
> 102.9
> 104.5
> 106.1
> 106.9

Eh ... 102.1 really shouldn't be on your list since it's urban leaning. Take that off and you have gospel.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Nothing wrong with Nostalgia.

> Nostalgia is a big part of it for radio enthusiasts like me,
> but I have my own reason. For me and AM Radio, if you grew
> up with it, you don't outgrow it.


See, I can appreciate that. I have certain "hobbies" or "passions" that I indulge in once in a while where I prefer the "old school" or "throw back" versions versus the "new and improved". The "old" version was just fine back in a simpler time.

I think you touched on why - we made a very important emotional connection (with whatever it is) at a certain point and like to take ourselves back to that time.

That's cool. I'll bet you have a kick ass collection of albums on vinyl...which leads me to my next non-disrespectful intent question - does vinyl really sound better than today's technology, or is it simply that really cool sound of the needle hitting the record before the first track?
 
Re: Why AM?

Because ever since the elimination of the 7/7/7(5) AM/FM/TV(VHF) rule, the value of FM licenses has become so high, that to service the debt alone costs far more than niche formats such as beautiful music, true 1950s oldies, big band, standards, real jazz, classical, etc can bring in to meet debt and operating expenses. AM stations are still relatively cheap (although IBOC digital may change that soon) and in some, albeit rare, cases offer such formats. In the Wash DC market, there are no AM stations with secular music in English. I was hoping that multicast on digital FM might allow for the resurrection of such formats, but the announced multis so far are just more rock/urban. Thank God for satellite!!!





> > Its like that in every big city. You have to go way out
> in
> > the sticks to find music (or English) on AM anymore.
> >
> Honestly, and I am not trying to be ignorant nor funny nor
> both, what is the appeal with AM and music? Nostalgia?
> With so many technological opportunities today why would
> anyone want to listen to music on an AM signal? I don't
> think that even the cheapest of cars come with an AM only
> radio anymore.
>
 
> > Heck the FM
> > band is not much better, its just an urban wasteland.
>
> NOT URBAN:
> 92.5
> 94.1
> 94.5
> 95.7
> 98.1
> 99.5
> 101.1
> 102.1
> 102.9
> 104.5
> 106.1
> 106.9
>
Sounds like a bias post to me, if you included rim shot 99.5, why did you miss Kiss 101.3, 106.9 is religious and the other signals are either rim shots or play some type of urban music, you are searching in the dust to prove yourself. My point is there are only 3 pure non urban formats 92.5/93.3 and 94.1 in a wasteland of oversaturated urban lists. That is my point, whats yours???
 
Re: Nothing wrong with Nostalgia.

I won't go there with ya, but I'll go a bit further...the stuff sounds better going through tubes than solid state. Ahem.
 
Re: I will take the product over the presentation

> I do remember the
> old WCAU-FM, when they went stereo, while still playing many
> obscure and "oh wow" cuts they still maintained that great
> stereo separation. For example; all the Beach Boys, in
> particular "Don't Worry Baby", Turtles, Buckinghams,
> Hollies, Monkees, Beatles, a few Stones tunes, Tommy Roe,
> these songs were cut in magnificent separation along with
> many, many others....Now that was great listening, when you could cut
> out the vocals on one channel or the instruments on the
> other.
>
If I follow what you are saying, I couldn't disagree more strongly. The early stereo recordings were poor BECAUSE of the phony separation with the vocals on one channel and the lead instruments on the other. It was completely artificial and not designed for the way human ears hear sound. If you weren't sitting PRECISELY between the two speakers, you weren't hearing the music in any fashion approximating the way it was performed. By the late 60s, record producers understood this and designed stereo mixes that were deeper, dimensionally, than wider. But going back to the early days, "Pet Sounds" is far better in mono than in the phony stereo version. The same can be said for the pre-"Rubber Soul" Beatles' stuff.
 
> if you included rim shot
> 99.5, why did you miss Kiss 101.3

Because 99.5 can be heard in Philadelphia and 80% of the Philadelphia market.

Kiss 101.7 can't be heard in Philadelphia and is lucky to reach 25% of the Philadelphia market.

I also didn't include WRDX - 94.7, which has a signal similar to that of Kiss 101.7.

> My point is there are only 3 pure non urban
> formats 92.5/93.3 and 94.1

When was the last time WMGK or WBEB or WBEN or WSNI or WOGL played ANY OF THESE SONGS:

Kanye West Gold Digger
Bow Wow f/Ciara Like You
Mariah Carey Shake It Off
Young Jeezy f/Akon Soul Survivor
David Banner Play

These are the TOP FIVE - MOST FREQUENTLY PLAYED URBAN SSONGS IN THE COUNTRY.
 
I classify urban as a station that plays more than 60% of their music from African American artists, I am not including stations from other markets, just Philly. My take on this: Urban=96.5/98.1/98.9/100.3/102.1/103.9/105.3/106.1 and 107.9: Not considered urban=92.5/93.3/94.1/95.7/101.1/102.9/104.5...Results 9-urban 7-non urban. Do the math, is this the future of radio, due to the fact the radio execs WILL NOT embrace any new Rock and non-urban product, even though Disturbed has the NUMBER ONE album now, and last month it was Trapt. They continue to push and shove repitious urban music to the public and youth of America. We must also remember, out of the 7 non-urban formats only TWO are rock.
 
> I classify urban as a station that plays more than 60% of
> their music from African American artists, I am not
> including stations from other markets, just Philly.

That's a very poor (and almost bigoted) identifier for "urban" stations for a couple of reasons.

First, what about African-American artists like Lenny Kravitz or Victor Wooten who play what I'd imagine you'd classify as "white" music? Their style is definitely in the vein of Adult Alternative/Rock, not urban. Just because they're black doesn't make their music urban.

Second, what about artists like Luther Vandross or Whitney Houston whose appeal crosses both race and genre lines? You would hear Vandross on WRNB just as much as you may hear him on WSNI or WBEB. You wouldn't classify his or her music as urban because it's not. Again, their race doesn't make their music urban.

Third, urban music is defined hip-hop and R&B (and reggae and calypso depending on who you ask), and that's it. No one you talk to will say that urban music is music produced by African-Americans. What about Eminem, is he less "urban" because he is white? What about the countless others that are white, hispanic, latino, et cetera? Just because they're not black doesn't make their music not urban.

> My take
> on this: Urban=96.5/98.1/98.9/100.3/102.1/103.9/105.3/106.1
> and 107.9: Not considered
> urban=92.5/93.3/94.1/95.7/101.1/102.9/104.5...Results
> 9-urban 7-non urban. Do the math, is this the future of
> radio, due to the fact the radio execs WILL NOT embrace any
> new Rock and non-urban product, even though Disturbed has
> the NUMBER ONE album now, and last month it was Trapt. They
> continue to push and shove repitious urban music to the
> public and youth of America. We must also remember, out of
> the 7 non-urban formats only TWO are rock.

As for this, you need to break it down a little bit better.

There really are only three true urban stations in market (Power, Wired, and Beat) with one urban leaning CHR (Q102).

Of WPPZ and WRNB, only 'RNB could be considered urban, though it's really AC; so for your benefit, I'll count it as an urban station (even though it really isn't). The same for WDAS.

How the heck can you say WJJZ and WOGL are urban? Oh that's right: black people only make urban music, period. Might I suggest that you have more than just problems with "their" music?

So now let's take another count (from your list of stations). For the sake of argument I'm splitting the urban category in two (urban rhythmic and urban AC).

3 - urban rhythmic stations (96.5, 98.9, 100.3)
3 - rock stations (93.3, 94.1, 102.9)
3 - AC stations (95.7, 101.1, 104.5)
2 - urban AC stations (105.3, 107.9)
1 - country station (92.5)
1 - CHR (with an urban lean)(102.1)
1 - oldies station (98.1)
1 - gospel station (103.9)
1 - jazz station (106.1)

Of the sixteen stations, only five are urban (and only three of those truly urban by today's standards) and another one has urban in the rotation.

I think you need to do the math; of these stations, three are primarily rockers, with another three that would have rock in the rotation (one of which being the same station that is the extra on the urban side).

Five stations play rock; five stations play urban; one station plays both!

Looks like radio in Philly matches up pretty well with the charts you're using to defend your case. Before you rant, at least break it down logically and not base it on whatever prejudice you may have.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom