-
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
Wouldn't it be great to get Smooth Jazz back onto FM commercial radio?
- Thread starter SJFAN
- Start date
Lots of good posts in this thread. Bill, Nock, AC Tones. 
I would doubt if smooth jazz, and not the stuff they are playing now, will be brought back on FM. Seems like the radio heads want to keep on dumbing down their listeners and give them less and less choices to choose. In this day and age, internet is the way to go to listen to it.
Kepler and BA had a lot to do with this format demise. They are the leader in "smooth jazz", as in stations carrying their programming. Kepler and gang just puts out a terrible porduct. They could do so much better. Look at all the great music that is out there now. Just a take a listen to the wav and the Harmonic Lounge.
I would doubt if smooth jazz, and not the stuff they are playing now, will be brought back on FM. Seems like the radio heads want to keep on dumbing down their listeners and give them less and less choices to choose. In this day and age, internet is the way to go to listen to it.Kepler and BA had a lot to do with this format demise. They are the leader in "smooth jazz", as in stations carrying their programming. Kepler and gang just puts out a terrible porduct. They could do so much better. Look at all the great music that is out there now. Just a take a listen to the wav and the Harmonic Lounge.
What's so tough about programming virtually any format on a commercial radio station is the reality you have to make enough money to pay the bills..and that tends to water down the pureness of any format.
And, yes, I know "enough" revenue is subjective.
The person (s) who are able to successfully mix "hits" with what I call power mid-charts and older library material is a gifted radio pro. It truly is a real art...and not an easy one.
Get too overly careful, with ultra short music lists, and you bore your audience. Get too way out there, and play too many songs that just aren't that great just so you can say you play "everything"...you lose many people.
Not every track on every CD is great and is worthy of airplay on a commercial radio station...that's been the case forever on every type/format of music.
I've heard some great music on the many NAC/SJ streaming stations...but, I hear a lot of, to be kind: B-grade material too (yeah, I know that's my opinion). A *lot* of very marginal cuts. Blending music for the masses, even on a niche format, is indeed a difficult, challenging balancing act.
Oh, I heard a few years ago the public loves cover versions. Don't know where they got their data, because myself...I can't stand 90% of them. In top 40, Phil Collins "You Can't Hurry Love" is an example. Horrible cover of the Supremes old 60's hit.
And, yes, I know "enough" revenue is subjective.
The person (s) who are able to successfully mix "hits" with what I call power mid-charts and older library material is a gifted radio pro. It truly is a real art...and not an easy one.
Get too overly careful, with ultra short music lists, and you bore your audience. Get too way out there, and play too many songs that just aren't that great just so you can say you play "everything"...you lose many people.
Not every track on every CD is great and is worthy of airplay on a commercial radio station...that's been the case forever on every type/format of music.
I've heard some great music on the many NAC/SJ streaming stations...but, I hear a lot of, to be kind: B-grade material too (yeah, I know that's my opinion). A *lot* of very marginal cuts. Blending music for the masses, even on a niche format, is indeed a difficult, challenging balancing act.
Oh, I heard a few years ago the public loves cover versions. Don't know where they got their data, because myself...I can't stand 90% of them. In top 40, Phil Collins "You Can't Hurry Love" is an example. Horrible cover of the Supremes old 60's hit.
P.S.: Indeed...I'm aware of BA's taking over many NAC/SJ stations about 15 years ago and it wasn't necessarily a great thing for the format. As I say, picking & blending the right mix of music in any format isn't an easy task.
My favorite NAC/SJ ever: KWJZ Seattle under Carole Handley. I liked KTWV's first 15 or 20 years. WNUA in Chicago was very good too. I'm sure I'm missing some stations...but, those 3 are the ones that I quickly recall.
My favorite NAC/SJ ever: KWJZ Seattle under Carole Handley. I liked KTWV's first 15 or 20 years. WNUA in Chicago was very good too. I'm sure I'm missing some stations...but, those 3 are the ones that I quickly recall.
Tim, I am not sure what streams your are listening to, but there is far more NAC being played, and has been on the Internet than on BA's Smooth Jazz and Smooth A/C networks. It's not even close. Also curious as to what you would qualify as "B-grade material." Are you talking about lesser known artists as opposed to bigger name guys? Would love to hear some of your favorite NAC cuts/artists of all time. Are they primarily vocals? For my own purposes, as an NAC and instrumental-heavy station, it would be useful to know as a baseline. My goal as a programmer has been to attract old NAC listeners, and while I don't hit the spot with everyone, most of the hardcore instrumental guys love the station. But as you said, this is very subjective and ultimately a matter of personal taste/preference.
Saw this in today's (12/14) RAMP. Looks like the same old thing. To bad! It's also interesting to follow the thought stream on the "Cleveland" section of Radio-Info.
"Smooth AC fights for its right... in Cleeeeeeeevelaaaand! Rubber City Radio Group is in the process of buying Triple A WNWV (V107.3)/Cleveland from Elyria-Lorain, and RAMP has learned that once the station officially changes hands, Rubber City will flip it to Smooth AC under its former identity of "107.3 The Wave," the name it was known as during most of its 22 years as a Smooth Jazz outlet before going Triple A in 2009. "It will feature Pop and Urban AC vocals along with Smooth Jazz vocals and instrumentals," SVP Nick Anthony tells RAMP. A Facebook page for the new/old station is already up, and rumors are circulating that the changeover could happen as soon as Friday. Anthony is looking for full- and part-time airstaff who can do that content-creation and social-networking thing. To apply for these EOE openings, get your resume and demo in front of him at Rubber City Radio Group, 1795 West Market Street, Akron, OH 44313, or do it digitally at [email protected]. Tell him RAMP sent you, and we'll bestow our hearty thanks upon you."
"Smooth AC fights for its right... in Cleeeeeeeevelaaaand! Rubber City Radio Group is in the process of buying Triple A WNWV (V107.3)/Cleveland from Elyria-Lorain, and RAMP has learned that once the station officially changes hands, Rubber City will flip it to Smooth AC under its former identity of "107.3 The Wave," the name it was known as during most of its 22 years as a Smooth Jazz outlet before going Triple A in 2009. "It will feature Pop and Urban AC vocals along with Smooth Jazz vocals and instrumentals," SVP Nick Anthony tells RAMP. A Facebook page for the new/old station is already up, and rumors are circulating that the changeover could happen as soon as Friday. Anthony is looking for full- and part-time airstaff who can do that content-creation and social-networking thing. To apply for these EOE openings, get your resume and demo in front of him at Rubber City Radio Group, 1795 West Market Street, Akron, OH 44313, or do it digitally at [email protected]. Tell him RAMP sent you, and we'll bestow our hearty thanks upon you."
Bill Harmonic said:
Actually if the new 107.3 sounds like their HD2 stream, it may not be such a bad thing and maybe what the format needs to survive.
I listened to their HD2 stream a couple of times on and off, and although it is pretty heavy on R&B vocals it sounded NOTHING like the B.A. style Smooth A.C that we are stuck with today. They had a much deeper playlist and would play tracks that I normally wouldn't hear. I've downloaded a few tracks to my iPod from listening to their station. Here are some that I wrote down that they played, that I downloaded.
Michael Gettel - Letting Go
Seal - Colour
Hiroshima - Thousand Cranes
Vonda Shepard - Don't Cry Ilene
Stanley Clarke - Lisa
Lisa Fisher & James Williams - You Moved Me to This
Me'shell Negeocello - Outside Your Door
Joss Stone - Bruised But Not Broken
Kendra Ross - I'm So Okay
Music purists of any genre will rarely like ANY commercial radio station because they are, well: businesses...programmed for the mostly passive, only listens a few hours a week TOTAL masses.
Most average people treat radio as background...just as part of their lives...not as a passion in their lives. So, radio sticks with the most-familiar, least-risky, safe-safe-safe method.
Hey, I hate the short playlists and repetition on radio as much as anybody. But, that's what personal MP3 players and hobby-type streaming stations are for...and thank heavens we have those options.
But, as ridiculous as this probably sounds to you guys...SOME smooth jazz on radio is better than no smooth jazz. Maybe hook some of the public on the NAC/SJ "hits"...and they'll develop an interest to dig deeper to the thousands of NAC/SJ tracks never heard on radio, maybe go to some artists' concerts...you know?
Most average people treat radio as background...just as part of their lives...not as a passion in their lives. So, radio sticks with the most-familiar, least-risky, safe-safe-safe method.
Hey, I hate the short playlists and repetition on radio as much as anybody. But, that's what personal MP3 players and hobby-type streaming stations are for...and thank heavens we have those options.
But, as ridiculous as this probably sounds to you guys...SOME smooth jazz on radio is better than no smooth jazz. Maybe hook some of the public on the NAC/SJ "hits"...and they'll develop an interest to dig deeper to the thousands of NAC/SJ tracks never heard on radio, maybe go to some artists' concerts...you know?
I grew up listening to a night time program on then WQXI-FM "94-Q" called Jazz Flavors. The station went from AC to top 40 to classic hits during the day. As a kid, I found the music that then hosts Russ Davis and Cliff Smith playing so much better than the 80's pop crap of the day, especially garbage like New Kids on the Block (hard to believe this is considered an oldie but my niece thinks so).
Anyway, I guess Jazz Flavors on 94-Q was more mainstream jazz mixed in with new age. You'd hear Chic Correa, Stanley Clarke, Jean-Luc Ponty, Michael Franks, Steely Dan, Al Jarreau, George Benson, Level 42 (not the top 40 singles) mixed in with Andreas Vollenweider, Ray Lynch, Acoustic Alchemy, Pat Metheny...each of these artists became my favorites. I got the opportunity to see Al Jarreau open Lakewood in 1989, Take 6 was their opening act. Later that year, Andreas Vollenweider mesmerized me and about 5000 people at the Fox Theater.
This was REAL MUSIC with depth and breadth that got lost when the format went corporate in the 90's trying to turn it into some replacement for standards. If you brought back THIS type of jazz, it would appeal to many than the current worn out Clear channel 200 track washout parade of a handful of jazz cuts with some horribly overplayed R&B and pop crap you can spin the dial and hear about 20 other places.
That is why it flopped. If it were left to be what it was before it became canned it would still be here. No it isn't going pull double digits, but it would be a solid format with dedicated listeners who spend money.
but what do I know, I am not a college educated radio consultant. just an avid listener who is tuning out corporate radio.
Anyway, I guess Jazz Flavors on 94-Q was more mainstream jazz mixed in with new age. You'd hear Chic Correa, Stanley Clarke, Jean-Luc Ponty, Michael Franks, Steely Dan, Al Jarreau, George Benson, Level 42 (not the top 40 singles) mixed in with Andreas Vollenweider, Ray Lynch, Acoustic Alchemy, Pat Metheny...each of these artists became my favorites. I got the opportunity to see Al Jarreau open Lakewood in 1989, Take 6 was their opening act. Later that year, Andreas Vollenweider mesmerized me and about 5000 people at the Fox Theater.
This was REAL MUSIC with depth and breadth that got lost when the format went corporate in the 90's trying to turn it into some replacement for standards. If you brought back THIS type of jazz, it would appeal to many than the current worn out Clear channel 200 track washout parade of a handful of jazz cuts with some horribly overplayed R&B and pop crap you can spin the dial and hear about 20 other places.
That is why it flopped. If it were left to be what it was before it became canned it would still be here. No it isn't going pull double digits, but it would be a solid format with dedicated listeners who spend money.
but what do I know, I am not a college educated radio consultant. just an avid listener who is tuning out corporate radio.
I too loved stations like QXI-FM's Jazz Flavors....and the original NAC/SJ stations in the 80's and early 90's.
The reality is...commercial radio is a business....and if playing 5,000 tracks and trying to educate the masses on a particular music genre was that popular with the general public...you'd have HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS, if not thousands of stations getting rich playing 5,000 songs.
What you guys talk about is a niche format that lives best on-line, where the number of listeners is irrelevant and you're not relying on advertising to pay the bills.
Blame the public's lack of musical depth or interest. Enough advertisers are simply not willing to invest money in audiences that small. It's a shame, really.
The reality is...commercial radio is a business....and if playing 5,000 tracks and trying to educate the masses on a particular music genre was that popular with the general public...you'd have HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS, if not thousands of stations getting rich playing 5,000 songs.
What you guys talk about is a niche format that lives best on-line, where the number of listeners is irrelevant and you're not relying on advertising to pay the bills.
Blame the public's lack of musical depth or interest. Enough advertisers are simply not willing to invest money in audiences that small. It's a shame, really.
I think we have to be careful about labeling those who are trying to create innovative programming as 'jazz afficianados who don't understand programming or realities of the business". That was BA's propaganda line in '95 when they were trying to get established programmers out of the building and their people in. These "jazz afficianados" were often people who thought a little Rippingtons, Chaquico, or Acoustic Alchemy might spice up the onslaught of "seductive sensual" soprano sax songs in minor keys and r&b ballads. so extreme and radical :
Fact is there are programmers who are passionate about the music, know it inside out, and also know how to program for the audience, know the difference between innovation and self indulgence, and know how to use research to get information about the listeners tastes and use that information as one tool to create a successful music mix.
We are talking about a different breed of listener too because over the past 10 years internet exposure has opened people up to accepting a wider range of musical styles. This doesn't mean you can go all over the road. It does mean that dumbing down is no longer necessary. (was it ever)
Fact is there are programmers who are passionate about the music, know it inside out, and also know how to program for the audience, know the difference between innovation and self indulgence, and know how to use research to get information about the listeners tastes and use that information as one tool to create a successful music mix.
We are talking about a different breed of listener too because over the past 10 years internet exposure has opened people up to accepting a wider range of musical styles. This doesn't mean you can go all over the road. It does mean that dumbing down is no longer necessary. (was it ever)
Well...I love a lot of the artists the previous poster mentioned. But, I don't own a radio station. I own an MP3 player. I can load thousands of NAC/SJ tracks on my MP3 player and I'm not risking anything but my time.
If it were me investing millions of dollars in a terrestrial radio station who's financial success depends on the approval of the mass, general public...I don't know that I'd have the guts to take a chance of playing a lot of relatively unfamiliar music, hoping the general public would learn love the variety & depth of music as much as I do.
Dumbed down? Oh, absolutely...that's the world we live in, unfortunately. We as a society have been going through that sad state of affairs for a few decades, and not in just music tastes.
Every business can't be like Amazon.com....the ultimate long tail company.
If it were me investing millions of dollars in a terrestrial radio station who's financial success depends on the approval of the mass, general public...I don't know that I'd have the guts to take a chance of playing a lot of relatively unfamiliar music, hoping the general public would learn love the variety & depth of music as much as I do.
Dumbed down? Oh, absolutely...that's the world we live in, unfortunately. We as a society have been going through that sad state of affairs for a few decades, and not in just music tastes.
Every business can't be like Amazon.com....the ultimate long tail company.
Tim said:
I don't think the public lack of musical depth or interest is to blame, but a flawed logic in the business to me that just doesn't make sense. I talk to people daily and many complain about the lack of anything good on the radio (this is not just for Smooth Jazz, but across the music spectrum) and with so many stations being owned by mega media giants like Clear Channel, there really is no other alternative except for the Internet.
Beyond on the research, data, stats, or whatever they use, I just don't understand their logic. Play the same 200 songs and they will continue to come? Why when I can download those same 200 songs, plus thousands more and play them whenever I want. What's the point of me coming to listen to your station? The reason, I still listen to radio, (well Internet radio mostly now like the .wav) is because I like hearing and discovering new music and artist. I keep coming back because I hear more and more new stuff that I like. It's the reason I listen to old airchecks of NAC stations to hear music that I'm not use to hearing. There are billions of people on this planet, so why are we forced to hear the same 100 artist again and again??, It makes no sense at all.
I notice radio stations don't seem to stick around too long, when they change formats. 107.3 WNWV was a SJ/NAC for 20 years, they switch to AAA, only to change back after a year. The same with many SJ/NAC stations. 105.9 WJZW in DC was SJ for at least 10+ years it changed formats to oldies only to change again a year later, then to rock, then recently changed again to talk. So that to me is a sign that the industry has really bad leadership that has no idea what they are doing and doesn't understand what the listener wants.
As far as Internet radio, if I could stream Internet radio to my car without any issues (no dropouts, signal issues, data caps, etc.) I would never turn on my FM and would cancel my satellite radio subscription.
JoshB said:
Hey Josh, let me take a stab at this. Here in Nashville we have 2 large corporations and one regional player in the market. What is funny is the regional player has consistently beat Clear Channel and Crumulus. They change formats because it is big chess match amongst them. If they throw format x on station x, how many listeners can they get into their whole clusters ratings. I am pretty sure they sell on the clusters ratings and not necessarily one stations. Not sure how accurate but I think I am close?
Nock
The Future Of Jazz
Josh & Nock...Love both of your comments. And, I agree with what you guys say.
But, like I said before....we 3 are not radio station owners. The risk in getting too far away from what research tells you most people want to hear is high. And, in an economy that's not getting significantly better for 90% of the population (and may never)...all business owners are being very careful...radio station owners too.
The average station in 2011 plays close to 350-600 tracks...regardless of format....and stations are based on the average listener with radio on maybe 5 or 10 hours a week total....not long enough to notice smaller playlists and repetition.
Do I agree with that? Well, not for me and music fans. But, as I said before...if it were me risking millions of dollars invested in a radio station...I wouldn't be that anxious to roll the dice...and take a big risk by expanding playlists too much.
Believe me, guys I'm agree with you about music personally. But, the bottom line is, despite the fact you'll hear the general public complain from time to time about repetition on the radio...stations that switch to 1,000+ track formats 95% of the time lose significant audience. The general public in reality...for some insane reasons live in a 300-500-song comfort zone.
I know enough radio people who hate the short lists and repetition, but they do what they believe most listeners want because radio's a business that pays their salaries.
That's why I love my own MP3 player (and other music sources).
But, like I said before....we 3 are not radio station owners. The risk in getting too far away from what research tells you most people want to hear is high. And, in an economy that's not getting significantly better for 90% of the population (and may never)...all business owners are being very careful...radio station owners too.
The average station in 2011 plays close to 350-600 tracks...regardless of format....and stations are based on the average listener with radio on maybe 5 or 10 hours a week total....not long enough to notice smaller playlists and repetition.
Do I agree with that? Well, not for me and music fans. But, as I said before...if it were me risking millions of dollars invested in a radio station...I wouldn't be that anxious to roll the dice...and take a big risk by expanding playlists too much.
Believe me, guys I'm agree with you about music personally. But, the bottom line is, despite the fact you'll hear the general public complain from time to time about repetition on the radio...stations that switch to 1,000+ track formats 95% of the time lose significant audience. The general public in reality...for some insane reasons live in a 300-500-song comfort zone.
I know enough radio people who hate the short lists and repetition, but they do what they believe most listeners want because radio's a business that pays their salaries.
That's why I love my own MP3 player (and other music sources).
Can someone explain why the format worked fine 20 years ago and it doesn't make it now (according to IMO, the same flawed research cited)?
Is it because there were less sources of music? I don't think so.
I think the answer is simple. In the "golden days" of radio pre-1996, programming was done locally, stations had a music director, and less reliance on "consultants" and "industry data". This seems to still be the case at many big billing urban stations.
V103 in Atlanta is a prime example. Despite being corporate owned, the station has been pulling numbers for 20+ years. Why? Ever listened? Live 24/7 locally programmed, they dump a ton of bucks into local remotes, promotions and personalities. Their audience has just as many cellphones, MP3/IPODs as anyone else in Atlanta.
They do well because it's about PEOPLE. A station run the same way with Jazz/New Age could do just as well, but no one wants to risk those "millions" on a terrestrial station to find out. So they stay with the same "approved safe" washout playlist, canned segues, and crap their "consultants" tell them to.
And all it does is drive people away.
Radio is it's own worst enemy, with some exception. There will come a day in the next decade where the only OTA radio will be as it was in it's genesis: local people serving what their community wants. The mass media companies will move on or fail, and divest all their stations, even at a loss. Then we might have at least one or two good listener supported community stations in each town.
I'd gladly write my check, pitch in with some hours doing music selection, or engineering (do have an RF background in two way radio) to make it happen.
I just don't have an extra 5 million in the bank to get one started.
Is it because there were less sources of music? I don't think so.
I think the answer is simple. In the "golden days" of radio pre-1996, programming was done locally, stations had a music director, and less reliance on "consultants" and "industry data". This seems to still be the case at many big billing urban stations.
V103 in Atlanta is a prime example. Despite being corporate owned, the station has been pulling numbers for 20+ years. Why? Ever listened? Live 24/7 locally programmed, they dump a ton of bucks into local remotes, promotions and personalities. Their audience has just as many cellphones, MP3/IPODs as anyone else in Atlanta.
They do well because it's about PEOPLE. A station run the same way with Jazz/New Age could do just as well, but no one wants to risk those "millions" on a terrestrial station to find out. So they stay with the same "approved safe" washout playlist, canned segues, and crap their "consultants" tell them to.
And all it does is drive people away.
Radio is it's own worst enemy, with some exception. There will come a day in the next decade where the only OTA radio will be as it was in it's genesis: local people serving what their community wants. The mass media companies will move on or fail, and divest all their stations, even at a loss. Then we might have at least one or two good listener supported community stations in each town.
I'd gladly write my check, pitch in with some hours doing music selection, or engineering (do have an RF background in two way radio) to make it happen.
I just don't have an extra 5 million in the bank to get one started.
From what I understand, most NAC/SJ stations didn't start making decent ad money til they started changing the music to be more ACish (which we all hate).
Then, not really understanding the music, core audience, and who to and which ad clients to approach and sell, they went too far....and way AC-ish & overly-familiar (cut the older track & current library...stopped adding as much new music, currents became too few & far between and really were re-currents).
In other words, after NAC/SJ began to catch on....owners saw some revenue improvement, they got stars in their eyes and told their PDs to change the music to make the format "broader, more mass appeal" went way too far and wrecked it.
Mind you...I *agree* with you guys. I love the music, and hate what's happened to the original format. But, I do realize terrestrial radio is a business.
Do I think traditional NAC/SJ in 2012 can be a ratings & financial success? Sure. But, not by playing 2,000 or 3,000 tracks, but certainly not the opposite just 300-600 tracks. And, not in every market. NAC/SJ is the essence of a niche format.
P.S.: In the 80's and 90's, NAC/SJ stations got some national and large agency revenue because listeners they did have were in their 30's and 40's. Today, they've aged into their 50's and 60's, and that's not a demo most larger advertisers seek. Plus, there's not enough exposure of the music to younger demos to see if they might like the format. Everybody's afraid to take a chance.....sadly.
Then, not really understanding the music, core audience, and who to and which ad clients to approach and sell, they went too far....and way AC-ish & overly-familiar (cut the older track & current library...stopped adding as much new music, currents became too few & far between and really were re-currents).
In other words, after NAC/SJ began to catch on....owners saw some revenue improvement, they got stars in their eyes and told their PDs to change the music to make the format "broader, more mass appeal" went way too far and wrecked it.
Mind you...I *agree* with you guys. I love the music, and hate what's happened to the original format. But, I do realize terrestrial radio is a business.
Do I think traditional NAC/SJ in 2012 can be a ratings & financial success? Sure. But, not by playing 2,000 or 3,000 tracks, but certainly not the opposite just 300-600 tracks. And, not in every market. NAC/SJ is the essence of a niche format.
P.S.: In the 80's and 90's, NAC/SJ stations got some national and large agency revenue because listeners they did have were in their 30's and 40's. Today, they've aged into their 50's and 60's, and that's not a demo most larger advertisers seek. Plus, there's not enough exposure of the music to younger demos to see if they might like the format. Everybody's afraid to take a chance.....sadly.
- Status