Napster's radio connection
dave
7/28/00
I've worked my way through high school, college, and law school as an
announcer. I started at a Mom & Pop station in a town of 4,000.
Fifteen years later, I'm wrapping up my radio career with ClearChannel
of New Orleans. Despite my love for the industry (and because of it,)
I'm writing this note.
As I type this, it is 3 AM CDT. In twenty-one hours, Napster will be
shut down pursuant to a preliminary injunction ordered by a federal
judge. It will likely be the end of Napster as we know it.
Napster will likely be awarded a stay by the Court of Appeals (which
generally hates to kill off an industry without giving a jury the
chance to do so first.) When it does come to trial, two questions
will be asked of the jury:
1) Did Napster facilitate copyright violations?
[ Likely answer: "yes" ]
2) If the answer to 1) is "yes," what is the dollar amount of damages
suffered by the record companies in question?
[Likely answer: $1.00 ]
dough!
==============================
As Napster became popular, the music (and radio) industry overlooked
the fact that many (if not most) owners of personal computers do not
sport flashy new hardware. Most get by on Pentiums that barely clock
over 100 MHz, and hard drives with gigs that you can count on one
hand. When new, these units were fast, and fat. Now, they're just
antiques. Ironically, these machines are the backbone of the animal
that is scaring the bejesus out of the music industry.
Another important point to consider: The average user, working two
(or three) jobs has no time to devote to a full-time onslaught against
the music industry. Nor does the average user have unlimited hardware
resources to do the same.
Despite the above limitations.. what is driving the "popularity" of
Napster and its ilk?
After a year of experimenting with Napster, and looking over other
users' playlists, I found that the sheer variety of music is simply..
amazing. A Napster client that lists a Kid Rock song is as likely to
have Natalie Merchant and/or Run DMC on their playlist (which means
that these songs are on their computers, ready for listening.)
Looking over these Napster playlists, I *never* saw a user's playlist
that reflected a single genre of music. I was hoping to find Napster
clients with a taste for music that matched our playlist *exactly.* I
was not even fortunate enough to find a single user that even
resembled our playlist even vaguely, after thousands of samples.
The RIAA spouts concerns about lost revenue.. but is this what is
really scaring the record labels? That they might somehow not be able
to control the distribution of new music, as they currently (arguably)
enjoy with commercial radio?
"Napster clients" are listening to songs on small, relatively
inefficient computer speakers.. while at the same time, radio has
tried for decades to make any inroad into home listenership *at all.*
Christ, radio has been unable entice listeners even when the listeners
were equipped with fantastic home systems.
The problem? Radio programming's existence is framed around "drive
time," when captive audiences of drivers tune into a limited number of
frequencies (determined over five decades ago) pumping out a limited
number of songs.
Shit. It's as if we're continually fighting over land the size of
Rhode Island, for decades, deeded to us before we were ever aware that
there's a whole new world out there.
What's the connection? Radio has missed the boat. By micro-managing
every nuance of programming, and attempting to please most of the
people some of the time, radio has seen overall ratings consistently
slide. The vicious cycle of we have endured for the last decade has
only sharpened the appetite of the listener to "cherry pick" songs.
Napster filled the void.
Napster is dead. Long live Napster.
Martin Nathan
>
>What's the connection? Radio has missed the boat. By micro-managing
>every nuance of programming, and attempting to please most of the
>people some of the time, radio has seen overall ratings consistently
>slide. The vicious cycle of we have endured for the last decade has
>only sharpened the appetite of the listener to "cherry pick" songs.
>Napster filled the void.
>
>Napster is dead. Long live Napster.
>
>napd...@hotmail.com
I just turned on my local AC station- they played "Forever Young" by
Rod, followed by "Margaritaville" by Jimmy Buffett. Gee, WHAT AN
INNOVATIVE PLAYLIST! Napster is great- it gives you a chance to
hear what you want, when you want it. If you can't find it there,
you have to go buy it which happens a lot.
MN
Broadcast Services
print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Martin Nathan" <MNat...@Worldnet.Att.Net> wrote in message
news:hpSBOfzSG=waenYB9RC...@4ax.com...
Martin Nathan
<haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote:
> Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
>print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
>instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
BS- That is the kind of oldie that stations should dig out once in
awhile. Most listeners could care less about research.
MN
Broadcast Services
"Martin Nathan" <MNat...@Worldnet.Att.Net> wrote in message
news:VZqBOfUJqWR=vOxAieSjw0Nxvh=t...@4ax.com...
> BS- That is the kind of oldie that stations should dig out once in
> awhile. Most listeners could care less about research.
>
> MN
The last time I was in charge of programming, I did exactly that... But,
then the "new mentality" came in and insisted that no one rwally cared
(despite the numbers I was getting) and since that time, the station hasn't
been noticed by arbitron, again...
dave
Rob Andrews
><haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote:
>
> Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
>print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
>instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
I hate to burst your bubble, but that song "IS" in print! I found it at
CDNow.com, and I've found a lot of other songs there too that one would expect
would be out of print.
Rob Andrews
David Eduardo
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote in message
news:gKgg5.26391$B33....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
> print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
> instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
Research would not say that. It would say that very few people care about
the song, and that, possibly, more people don't want to ever hear it again
than anxiously await the next play.
Broadcast Services
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4TGg5.22$OQ1....@news.pacbell.net...
I didn't mean to say that most people would anxiously await it's next
play... But, an occasional play, as a means of "breaking the monotony" is
good. I believe that every person, at some time or other, has heard a song
that, altogh it didn't "top the charts" has a certain "significance" to
them... Occasionally, it's actually good to "do something different and
unpredictable"!
Now, I'm not saying that we should go overboard with "moldy oldies" but,
we SHOULD be running one or, if time allows, two of these "forgotten
treasures" by each hour...
Steve Crowley
Within the previous thread "Re: Napster's radio connection", Terry Keith
Hammond (Broadcast Services) and David Eduardo Gleason were debating the
reintroduction of "forgotten treasures" to contemporary radio formats.
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote:
> > > Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!<<<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> contended:
> > Research would not say that. It would say that very few people care
about the song, and that, possibly, more people don't want to ever hear it
again than anxiously await the next play.<<
David, I believe most researchers would say not to include such a song in
auditorium testing to begin with. At least that's what I'd tell any client
of mine who suggested it as anything other than a ringer. The methodology
alone would mean it'd be doomed from the start.
Terry, although the album "Goodbye Girl" is a concensus as "Best of Artist"
for David Gates post-Bread solo career, the song "Took the Last Train" only
peaked at #30 as a single in Billboard's Hot 100 during 1978. As such, it'd
be rare to find a market where it would have achieved great exposure as a
current. In the 22 years since, it's something that's too late for oldies
formats, too soft for classic rock, didn't have sufficient impact for
classic hits and by an artist who fell off the radar for most ACs in the
early 80's.
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> replied:
> I didn't mean to say that most people would anxiously await it's next
play... But, an occasional play, as a means of "breaking the monotony" is
good. I believe that every person, at some time or other, has heard a song
that, although it didn't "top the charts" has a certain "significance" to
them... Occasionally, it's actually good to "do something different and
unpredictable"!
> Now, I'm not saying that we should go overboard with "moldy oldies" but,
we SHOULD be running one or, if time allows, two of these "forgotten
treasures" by each hour...<
Terry, I agree with your general premise, if not your specific choice of a
musical example... one with French lyrics in the chorus, no less.
It's a very powerful thing to make people go "Oh wow!" and not always as
deadly to make our listeners go "Huh?" as many programmers fear... Because
there's always the possibility that a listener who finds something
unfamiliar at first will wish to hear more, although that's something most
researchers don't allow as a testing response. And as any student of
Neurolinguistics will tell you, the mind is very susceptible to suggestion
immediately after anything that produces a "Huh?"
Whether it's "forgotten treasures" or adding newly released music to a
current rotation, making any unfamiliar element work requires salesmanship.
The listener must buy the premise as well as the specific content.
Remember, every song you ever liked was once unfamiliar to you, as was every
recording artist whose voice you find instantly recognizable now. There's
always a possibility. Each "Huh?" gives you an opportunity to introduce
something different. And as Frank Zappa once said, "Without deviation from
the norm, 'progress' is not possible."
Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
David Eduardo
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> wrote in message
news:tFNg5.3267$Q7.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> contended:
> > > Research would not say that. It would say that very few people care
> about the song, and that, possibly, more people don't want to ever hear
it
> again than anxiously await the next play.<<
>
> David, I believe most researchers would say not to include such a song in
> auditorium testing to begin with. At least that's what I'd tell any client
> of mine who suggested it as anything other than a ringer. The methodology
> alone would mean it'd be doomed from the start.
>
Not necessarily. Not all markets have been thoroughly researched and in a
market with low transience, I'd play a local hit if the research came back.
A local hit may well be one that was not in the top 20 in Whitburn but was a
power in, let's say, Ishpeming. I think its important to keep probing the
songs that might just make it. I've recently been involved in "new"oldies
projects, one in LA and one in South America, where the test was well over
1000 songs. And in both cases, we have more songs to test soon as we have
not mined the total "known" library for the format. Both stations did very
well: LA got about twice the share the frequency had ever had before and the
other one just pulled a 19 in a 70 station market.
David Kaye
" As I type this, it is 3 AM CDT. In twenty-one hours, Napster will be
" shut down pursuant to a preliminary injunction ordered by a federal
" judge. It will likely be the end of Napster as we know it.
Not necessarily. I figured that Napster wasn't going to be shut down.
Judge Marilyn Patel was right: Napster raises some important issues in
copyright law.
" 1) Did Napster facilitate copyright violations?
Doesn't matter. Photocopy machines also facilitate copyright violations,
yet nobody has hauled Xerox or Canon into court.
A lot of the meat of copyright law rests on "damages" to the party who
owns the copyright. The record companies claim that they are damaged
because people who are downloading songs had originally intended to go out
and buy CDs instead. This has been shown to not be the case at all. In
my case (and I think I'm typical), I download a song because I'm looking
for only one song -- I am *not* going to go out and buy a CD with 15 or 20
songs I don't want on it just to get the one I want to hear. Also, I've
noticed that after downloading some songs I'm *more* inclined to want to
go out and buy CDs of the kind of music. Napster also discovered this in
their survey work.
So, unless it's possible to prove that they were actually damaged, it's
going to be very hard to push the case against Napster.
And forget Napster. Newsgroups are loaded with MP3s as well.
" [....] Ironically, these machines are the backbone of the animal
" that is scaring the bejesus out of the music industry.
I have no sorrow for the record companies. One thing I've learned about
greed is that the greedier someone is, the most the rip off from others.
There's a story in the paper today that rock and roller, Bo Diddley, is
*still* having to tour at age 71 because he doesn't have any money.
According to him, everyone from Chess records to Nike has ripped him off.
How many others have been ripped off by record companies? Well, in just
about every case that has come to trial, from John Fogerty to the Beatles,
the courts have ruled AGAINST the record companies.
The general rule seems to be: sign a contract with a record company and be
prepared to be ripped off for everything you have.
" After a year of experimenting with Napster, and looking over other
" users' playlists, I found that the sheer variety of music is simply..
" amazing.
I'm still trying to find more than one version of "Ramo, Ramo", the
Bulgarian pop song. The version that *is* there is only around for a few
minutes at a time because the guy doesn't log in for very long.
" A Napster client that lists a Kid Rock song is as likely to
" have Natalie Merchant and/or Run DMC on their playlist (which means
" that these songs are on their computers, ready for listening.)
I'll believe that Napster=variety when I see songs by Zlatne Uste or the
New Orleans Klezmer All-Stars on Napster.
--
(C) 2000 Ventura's official city name
David Kaye is really San Buenaventura
Steve Crowley
In reply to Terry Keith Hammond's "Broadcast Services"
<haw...@peoplescom.net> contention:
>>>>... According to "research" no one would want to hear (for instance)
David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!<<<<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Research <brief snip> would say that very few people care about the
song, and that, possibly, more people don't want to ever hear it again
than anxiously await the next play.<<<
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> to David:
> > David, I believe most researchers would say not to include such a song
in auditorium testing to begin with. At least that's what I'd tell any
client of mine who suggested it as anything other than a ringer. The
methodology alone would mean it'd be doomed from the start.<<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> to Steve:
> Not necessarily. Not all markets have been thoroughly researched and in a
market with low transience, I'd play a local hit if the research came back.
A local hit may well be one that was not in the top 20 in Whitburn but was a
power in, let's say, Ishpeming. <
You know, not very many markets are documented well enough to avoid BIGTIME
guesswork in selecting songs to research. I'd feel blessed to be able to
access personal or institutional memories which provided specific knowledge
of exposure patterns in a local market for the entire time period of music
to be tested. Regional sales records and actual spin counts for multiple
formats cross referenced against ratings would be even better.
But let's get real. We played records with more enthusiasm than we kept
records :-)
David Gates' "Took the Last Train", peaked at #30 as a current in 1978. 178
other songs peaked at #29 or above that year, including the more widely
known title cut from the same album "Goodbye Girl" at #15.
At first glance that's a better song to test. It has the benefit of added
exposure through the MGM hit movie "Goodbye Girl," which captured an Oscar
for Best Actor Richard Dreyfuss and four Golden Globes. But the title song
was never nominated for either award, and didn't even rank high enough as a
single to make Billboard's Top 100 for the year.
Even in a 1000 song test, you've got to prioritize your available slots.
Further down within a comment directed to Terry I said... >>It'd be rare to
find a market where it (David Gates' "Took the Last Train") would have
achieved great exposure as a current. << ... But certainly not impossible.
1978 Billboard chart status was not based on airplay at all, and would have
indicated a nationally sampled mean of reported sales. Local radio exposure
would not necessarily have been uniform. While a station which utilized the
Billboard chart precisely might have placed a song with a peak rank of #30
in a tertiary rotation, there also may have been isolated pockets where it
was powered.
You're right about a market with low transience having a higher probability
of recognition for regional hits. I don't know about Ishpeming <g>, but,
continuing with Terry's example song, maybe David Gates is still a hometown
hero in Tulsa. Perhaps there are other places where he had particularly
successful tour dates at the time "Took the Last Train" was out. Maybe an
influential station gave the song a huge push because of a promotion. Or
maybe there's a large high school that selected "Took the Last Train" as its
prom theme and 22 years later graduates who still live there at age 40 and
are right in the bullseye of somebody's research core sample.
Now if someone made the effort to find that out, that's extraordinary
research!
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> to Steve:
>I think its important to keep probing the songs that might just make it. <
Absolutely. I applaud your effort.
ad...@interlog.com
> "Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote in message
> news:gKgg5.26391$B33....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> > Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
> > print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
> > instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
>
> Research would not say that. It would say that very few people care about
> the song, and that, possibly, more people don't want to ever hear it again
> than anxiously await the next play.
I know it's my old mantra, but if art galleries went by this kind of research,
they wouldn't be showing "avant-garde" art and exhibitions anymore--instead,
they'd be something like all Wyeth, all the time...
Once again just a reminder, folks, of the dreary mentality you're dealing with.
David Eduardo
<ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:39845783...@interlog.com...
That is a rather poor analogy, and a self-defeating one if you look at it
closely.
People go to an art gallery to see good art. They do not go to see, what in
their opinion, is bad art. While at the gallery, they have the option of
skipping the rooms that are hung with periods, schools or artists that the
dislike. In this sense, the gallery becomes more like a newspaper where you
skip the car sections unless you are looking to trade a vehicle. This option
of skipping exhibits or rooms or even individual pieces makes a gallery
unlike radio, which is a single stream. You can not skip rooms or exhibits
without actually "leaving the gallery."
People go to a radio station to hear good songs. Songs they like. Songs that
make them feel good. Songs that complement the mood they are in. While
listening, they don't want to hear songs of other "schools, periods and
artists" that they don't like or that don't fit the station sound. Returning
to the gallery analogy, I doubt you will find that a person returns to a
gallery if they find consistently that the works on display contain only a
few items they enjoy seeing. They cease to cume the gallery by not
returning.
The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
and disliked today.
Martin Nathan
>
>The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
>wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
>take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
>pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
>and disliked today.
>
In that case, just keep playing that same tired Melissa Etheridge
song that stations refuse to bury after 5 years of it. Doesn't it
ever make you stop and wonder what all these people are downloading
from Napster. Somehow I don't think they are all crashing the server
just to hear the same old Melissa songs. They are looking for songs
they are not hearing on the radio. That's why Napster, and used
record stores, and record shows, and flea markets exist. Radio does
ok only because it is there.
Martin Nathan
ad...@interlog.com
> The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
> wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
> pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
> and disliked today.
Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never even be
*allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into cultural
purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized marginalia.
Now, in the realm of art galleries, here's my perfect example of a "dreary
mentality"...
July 18, 2000
An artistic triumph for common sense
Legislation has been introduced to restore the McMichael Gallery to its original
mandate
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Toronto Sun
Now that the Ontario government has introduced legislation to
restore Kleinburg's McMichael Gallery to its original mandate, the arts
establishment - elitists and faithful echoes - are outraged.
Indignation is as predictable as it is ill-founded.
Basically, all that's happening is that the 1989 legislation by the
Liberal government of David Peterson is being revoked - legislation
that violated the terms under which Bob and Signe McMichael gave their
invaluable
collection of paintings by Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven to the province.
About time, say I, speaking as an art connoisseur as well one interested in
basic
justice and fairness.
In 1989, the Peterson government gave the McMichael board of directors control
over acquisitions which, in effect, made the directors all-powerful. The gallery
went
into decline.
Acquisitions shifted to "contemporary" art. Public support dropped, costs rose.
Those
upset at recent changes forget that for 11 years the gallery has been run the
way
artsy types wanted. And they've screwed it up.
What sparked the Ontario government to step in was that the gallery was on the
brink of bankruptcy. Its shortfall was variously given as $100,000, then
$400,000, then
$700,000 and, finally, $1.5 million after a provincial audit.
But costly, inefficient management isn't what has the arts establishment upset -
the
think-alikes who want galleries reflecting the avant garde, modern and obscure
in
art.
What they can't abide is losing the battle to impose their artistic prejudices
on the
McMichael, which its founders intended as a shrine to the Group of Seven and
others
of their genre.
Extremism and mistruths are the currency of the foes of change. Geoffrey James,
identified by the Globe and Mail as former head of the visual arts division of
the
Canada Council, suggests the new legislation for the McMichael is reminiscent of
the "cultural heritage ... of Josef Stalin."
That's more silly than sinister.
Others accuse Premier Mike Harris of playing art critic; of bureaucrats defining
public
taste. More nonsense. All the legislation does is right a wrong - as four of the
five
still-living individuals who signed the 1965 agreement attest. The artsy crowd
prefers
untitled stuff that requires "experts" to interpret for the public. Supposedly,
some 3,000
of the 6,000 works acquired by the gallery are now to be dumped as mediocre or
inappropriate.
As an aside, one hopes the Babylon atrocity at the McMichael gallery will be
scrapped - large, rusting iron letters spelling "Babylon" for which the gallery
gave a
$150,000 tax receipt (which means the people of Ontario paid for it in lost tax
revenue).
People like Geoffrey James think dumping could wipe out "an already fragile
resale
market for contemporary art." Surely, this tells you something about
contemporary
art. How can you flood the market with good art? Would Van Gogh or the
Impressionists not find a home if the Louvre decided to dump them?
In fact, art banks (Canada Council) are being disbanded. Most people don't like
the modern stuff - won't buy or rent it. Mostly it's galleries that acquire
avant garde
art. Go to the AGO and see how empty their contemporary galleries are.
Contrary to recent slanders, Bob McMichael - crusty and peevish as he might be -
has not made buckets of money from his donation. He initially got no tax credit
and
worked for nothing. Yes, he acquired native art - but historic, original stuff,
not
modern native art work imitating an irretrievable past. Today, some 40% of Inuit
are
identified as "artists." Handicrafts, I'd say.
What's often overlooked is that virtually all the great art collections of the
world are
the obsession of one individual - not committees or curators. Bob McMichael fits
that
category, with works by Tom Thomson, the Group of Seven and their school of
Canadian impressionism which the new legislation seeks to restore, or encourage.
This doesn't preclude temporary exhibits at the McMichael which in recent years
have been so-so. A planned hockey art show has been dropped; the present
Ding-Ho exhibit excites little interest.
How about a retrospective of works by Ken Danby, or the Wyeth family - N.C.,
Andrew and Jamie? Or Norman Rockwell, Ray Ching, or quality wildlife by Bob
Bateman, board member and activist George Mclean, Ken Buhn, Bob Kuhn and
proven revenue producers?
Art isn't just about esthetics and culture, it's a business as well.
For those who prefer the avant-garde, there is always the AGO and Power Plant.
Still, art elitists feel threatened. Once it becomes clear what people prefer,
the
cultural fraud perpetrated by the arts establishment will be exposed, their
influence
diminished, their source of revenue curtailed.
That's the key issue at stake. The McMichael constitutes a rare defeat for the
avant-gardistes, hence their anguish. Despite claims, it's hardly a victory for
Stalinist
culture. Just the opposite, in fact.
ad...@interlog.com
> >
> >The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
> >wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> >take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
> >pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
> >and disliked today.
> >
>
> In that case, just keep playing that same tired Melissa Etheridge
> song that stations refuse to bury after 5 years of it. Doesn't it
> ever make you stop and wonder what all these people are downloading
> from Napster. Somehow I don't think they are all crashing the server
> just to hear the same old Melissa songs. They are looking for songs
> they are not hearing on the radio. That's why Napster, and used
> record stores, and record shows, and flea markets exist. Radio does
> ok only because it is there.
>
> Martin Nathan
So? You and your type were never really needed, anyway;-)
David Eduardo
<ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:39846E4D...@interlog.com...
> Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never even
be
> *allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into cultural
> purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized marginalia.
What is "70's retro" and what does it have to do with this discussion?
Martin Nathan
I am a fan of popular music, just as there are fans of sports. I
have bought over 2000 CD's since 1985. Surely that counts for
something. There are many others out there.
MN
ad...@interlog.com
> <ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:39846E4D...@interlog.com...
> > Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never even
> be
> > *allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into cultural
> > purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized marginalia.
>
> What is "70's retro" and what does it have to do with this discussion?
ROTFLMAO
Well, it's in response to *your* paragraph you just snipped...
"The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
and disliked today."
Ain't it clear how it fits in? (Though I changed the subject header to make it
"fit in" a little more)
And haven't you ever heard of the "Have A Nice Day" CD compilation series? Or
"That 70s Show"? Haven't you seen teenagers dressed in neo-70s (or real
thrift-store or parents'-closet 70s) gear? *For at least a decade now*? *ANY*
of the above?
I'm sorry, if you profess that having a finger on the pulse of the public and
popular culture is all-important to the radio type, for you to be so *oblivious*
as to the very *existence* of such things...well, who's dreary, now? (And I
presume you're going to hide behind another Hispanic-culture smokescreen, as per
usual.)
Let this speak for itself, disgruntled folks, as to why you're better off
writing off radio than rescuing it.
ad...@interlog.com
> Martin Nathan wrote:
>
> > >
> > >The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
> > >wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> > >take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
> > >pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
> > >and disliked today.
> > >
> >
> > In that case, just keep playing that same tired Melissa Etheridge
> > song that stations refuse to bury after 5 years of it. Doesn't it
> > ever make you stop and wonder what all these people are downloading
> > from Napster. Somehow I don't think they are all crashing the server
> > just to hear the same old Melissa songs. They are looking for songs
> > they are not hearing on the radio. That's why Napster, and used
> > record stores, and record shows, and flea markets exist. Radio does
> > ok only because it is there.
> >
> > Martin Nathan
>
> So? You and your type were never really needed, anyway;-)
Building on this, I find that the older you are, the more likely you'll decry what
radio's become. But if you're under 30, radio's innocuous marginality as a music
medium is pretty much taken for granted--quite frankly, it's had so many rings run
around it by phenomena from MTV to MP3 that you don't blame it for filling the
resulting moat with water and dragons to ward off the hair-shirt sentimentalists.
If radio *does* stick at all in younger persons' minds, it is, for better or worse,
as a right-wing talk medium--and there's a funny dovetailing with music radio's
sterility there. In both cases, it's a matter of a supposed cultural-conservative
"silent majority", whom those who aren't would find unspeakably dreary at best,
scary at worst, asserting itself. It was an early victory of the present age of
mass-marketing as niche-marketing; radio as the proud official medium of the Heroic
Philistine. A true takeover--brushing out all the extraneous half-baked
compromises and "funny stuff". And as it stands right now, music radio has as
little use for Napster, and Napster types has as little use for radio, as
left-wingers have for commercial talk radio and vice versa. While there was once
hope to "counterbalance" the excesses of Rush Limbaugh et al, nowadays it'd just
seem awkward and inapt, and it's best to let talk radio be. And as a "mass niche",
it'll probably remain fairly sturdy even after Rush's prime, and even in the
possible event of "medium changes"--it'll just be easier to disregard amidst the
plethora of options. Sort of the way how commercial music radio is today. (Which
is why the mega-musical-phenomena of the 90s, from Garth to Celine, already didn't
seem to "loom" as large as their counterparts in earlier years. And why that
darned Oscar-winning Phil Collins song from Tarzan is strangely, blissfully
*avoidable*.)
So maybe that's why the rationalizations David Eduardo offers have that vague
undertone of arguments offered on behalf of that the public being more culturally
conservative than the perhaps-scared mass media gives them credit for being. Even
through his Hispanic smokescreen, one suspects that yahoos like Elian's Miami
relatives might hold sway...at least, if Hispanic radio in the US operated
analogously to gringos like Rush and Dr. Laura...
David Eduardo
<ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:39847DE7...@interlog.com...
> David Eduardo wrote:
> > What is "70's retro" and what does it have to do with this discussion?
>
> ROTFLMAO
I asked an honest question and you giggle electronically. Obviously,
civility ain't one of your strong suits.
>
> Well, it's in response to *your* paragraph you just snipped...
>
> "The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the
listener
> wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like
bell-bottom
> pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate,
rejected
> and disliked today."
OK, that's interesting. I still don't see the connection because I don't
know what "retro 70's" is. That is why I asked the question. Which you did
not answer.
>
> Ain't it clear how it fits in? (Though I changed the subject header to
make it
> "fit in" a little more)
No, or I would not have asked.
>
> And haven't you ever heard of the "Have A Nice Day" CD compilation series?
No.
> Or "That 70s Show"?
Heard of. Clueless about what it is about. Never seen it.
>Haven't you seen teenagers dressed in neo-70s (or real
> thrift-store or parents'-closet 70s) gear? *For at least a decade now*?
*ANY*
> of the above?
No. Have not. Again, that is why I asked. To learn about something I am
unaware of that came up in the discussion. Elementary research, my dear
Watson.
>
> I'm sorry, if you profess that having a finger on the pulse of the public
and
> popular culture is all-important to the radio type, for you to be so
*oblivious*
> as to the very *existence* of such things...well, who's dreary, now? (And
I
> presume you're going to hide behind another Hispanic-culture smokescreen,
as per
> usual.)
Hide? I work exclusively in Spanish language radio. There is no such thing
as "Retro 70's" there so I could not be expected to know about something
that does not exist in my particular corner of the world. Again, that is why
I asked. Although it may be shocking to you, the entire world does not
revolve around the cultural experience you prefer.
Now, ask me about the influence of 60's Salsa in Puerto Rico or when
National Rock began in Argentina, where I _do_ work and I can be very
precise. Again, the reason I asked is because I don't know and was curious.
>
> Let this speak for itself, disgruntled folks, as to why you're better off
> writing off radio than rescuing it.
Where did this come from? You expect every radio professional to be aware of
every cultural and social trend in every ethnic, regional or international
market? The important point is to know your own audience and its taste and
needs. And to be curious about things happening elsewhere as they may apply
to one's specific area of endeavor and be useful tools or, at least,
interesting knowledge.
ad...@interlog.com
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:21:23 -0400, ad...@interlog.com wrote:
>
> >Martin Nathan wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the listener
> >> >wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> >> >take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like bell-bottom
> >> >pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate, rejected
> >> >and disliked today.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In that case, just keep playing that same tired Melissa Etheridge
> >> song that stations refuse to bury after 5 years of it. Doesn't it
> >> ever make you stop and wonder what all these people are downloading
> >> from Napster. Somehow I don't think they are all crashing the server
> >> just to hear the same old Melissa songs. They are looking for songs
> >> they are not hearing on the radio. That's why Napster, and used
> >> record stores, and record shows, and flea markets exist. Radio does
> >> ok only because it is there.
> >>
> >> Martin Nathan
> >
> >So? You and your type were never really needed, anyway;-)
>
> I am a fan of popular music, just as there are fans of sports. I
> have bought over 2000 CD's since 1985. Surely that counts for
> something. There are many others out there.
>
> MN
Forget it. You're too enlightened. And when you're dealing with people who go
glassy-eyed oblivious at notions such as "70s retro", or "pop", or "camp"--and then
hide behind the smokescreen of those being irrelevant/obsolete concepts, or not
"part of their culture"--you ain't got a hope in heck.
Your (our) kind of enlightened people once found a place in radio; now they just get
in the way. Besides, they have alternatives as never before. Let radio sink into
mouth-breathing populist torpor, which may or may not lead into Woolworth/Kresge
oblivion...
Broadcast Services
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tU%g5.31$T23....@news.pacbell.net...
>
> <ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:39847DE7...@interlog.com...
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> > > What is "70's retro" and what does it have to do with this discussion?
> >
> > ROTFLMAO
>
> I asked an honest question and you giggle electronically. Obviously,
> civility ain't one of your strong suits.
> >
> > Well, it's in response to *your* paragraph you just snipped...
> >
> > "The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the
> listener
> > wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you
do
> > take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like
> bell-bottom
> > pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate,
> rejected
> > and disliked today."
>
> OK, that's interesting. I still don't see the connection because I don't
> know what "retro 70's" is. That is why I asked the question. Which you did
> not answer.
> >
> > Ain't it clear how it fits in? (Though I changed the subject header to
> make it
> > "fit in" a little more)
>
> No, or I would not have asked.
> >
> > And haven't you ever heard of the "Have A Nice Day" CD compilation
series?
>
> No.
Think of it as "Jammin' Oldies", David. That's the closest commercial
equivalent.
Broadcast Services
construed as an attack on David's line of reasoning. This IS an observation
of "radio" as it was when I first worked as a part time weekender in 1977
through my years (as whatever) up to PD in the 1980's and 1990's to
engineering exclusively (since 1997):
The idea seems to be that, if presented with a "generic, watered-down"
product for a long enough period of time, the radio listening audience will
begin to see this poor product as "exemplary" and will not notice the
mediocrity of said product...
What passes as "exemplary" in the eyes of programmers in this day and age
is nothing more than "passable" to those of us who actually HAD to "do it
ourselves" in days gone by. We COULDN'T access research as easily as it can
be accessed today. We COULDN'T seat 1000 people in an auditorium for this
research. We COULDN'T rely on research from other cities even being close to
accurate as to what was acceptable in our local markets (it was a MUCH
larger world in those days - communications wise).
The "mediocrity" of today's programming is (in part) an answer to the
"instant communications" of today's world. It's also an answer to various
PD's desire to "fit in" and "be like the rest". I'd be willing to bet that,
were a PD to walk into a station somewhere, tomorrow, and recommend to
management that the consultant is unnecessary and that the station would do
better by tabulating local music sales, monitoring and logging calls on the
request lines, sponsoring "public assemblies" at which station personalities
would discuss the music selection with listeners (not as a "research" but
ask general questions and listen to feedback while talking careful notes)...
I'd be willing to bet that this "new PD" wouldn't last beyond the first
"management meeting" due to his methods being "unacceptable"... And, all
along, this is how we, at one time HAD to do it!
We also had a much more loyal following, in those days. I can recall being
at stations which had gone through a format change and having listeners call
with complaints about the new format but they'd almost always tell me that
they'd "try to like the new music" because "the people at your station are
soooo friendly and familiar that I feel as if I know them!" (Switch formats
TODAY and see how many of these calls you get!)
Problem was, though, that there had to be a way to take that "friendly and
familiar personality" out of the equation. THAT kind of listener loyalty
also allows your talent to ask for more money. (Damn! What can we do...
OH!!! I've got it! Here, rush these 3x5 index cards into the control room
and instruct everyone that we are now "Lite Rock, Less Talk"! THAT should
stop these "personalities"!)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
<ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:39847DE7...@interlog.com...
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
> > <ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:39846E4D...@interlog.com...
> > > Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never
even
> > be
> > > *allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into
cultural
> > > purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized
marginalia.
> >
> > What is "70's retro" and what does it have to do with this discussion?
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Well, it's in response to *your* paragraph you just snipped...
>
> "The true "dreary mentality" is the one that claims to know what the
listener
> wants without bothering to consult the listener. What you find when you do
> take the listener into account is that many oldies are just like
bell-bottom
> pants in that they worked once upon a time, but are inappropriate,
rejected
> and disliked today."
>
> Ain't it clear how it fits in? (Though I changed the subject header to
make it
> "fit in" a little more)
>
> And haven't you ever heard of the "Have A Nice Day" CD compilation series?
Or
> "That 70s Show"? Haven't you seen teenagers dressed in neo-70s (or real
> thrift-store or parents'-closet 70s) gear? *For at least a decade now*?
*ANY*
> of the above?
>
> I'm sorry, if you profess that having a finger on the pulse of the public
and
> popular culture is all-important to the radio type, for you to be so
*oblivious*
> as to the very *existence* of such things...well, who's dreary, now? (And
I
> presume you're going to hide behind another Hispanic-culture smokescreen,
as per
> usual.)
>
David Eduardo
>
>
> Think of it as "Jammin' Oldies", David. That's the closest commercial
> equivalent.
>
Jammin' Oldies of any particular flavor? For example,t he initial target of
the Jammin'station in LA was assimilated Hispanic women 25-44. That profile
is nice in LA, but would be improper for, let's say, Charlotte. Or are you
simply referring to rhythmic hits/music of the 70's?
Broadcast Services
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OT0h5.39$T23....@news.pacbell.net...
> Jammin' Oldies of any particular flavor? For example,t he initial target
of
> the Jammin'station in LA was assimilated Hispanic women 25-44. That
profile
> is nice in LA, but would be improper for, let's say, Charlotte.
No, I'm referring to the "Jammin' Oldies" that's so popular among the
Clear Channel ( I THINK it's CC, anyway) stations.
Or are you
> simply referring to rhythmic hits/music of the 70's?
>
>
You got it! Good ole (not to be "superialist" or "politically stuck-up"
but, I'll use the former title for it) "American Top-40"!
ad...@interlog.com
> Where did this come from? You expect every radio professional to be aware of
> every cultural and social trend in every ethnic, regional or international
> market? The important point is to know your own audience and its taste and
> needs. And to be curious about things happening elsewhere as they may apply
> to one's specific area of endeavor and be useful tools or, at least,
> interesting knowledge.
On the other hand, your persistent protestation of lack of working knowledge of
what's beyond the Hispanic realm gives you little credibility when you respond
dismissively to those who *have* countered your views and observations--indeed,
it makes you look like a bohunk traipsing into territory beyond your depth.
(Which contradicts, a bit, the genuine knowledge you've betrayed of the niceties
of North American radio history--a reason why I've sometimes wondered if a "no
hablo Inglese" smokescreen is sometimes involved.) At least I'm not attempting
to half-bakedly "address" the terra incognita of Hispanic radio and culture to
the same degree as you're attempting with non-Hispanic.
Unless, of course, it's a sign of using the rawest form of research in order to
"understand" the non-Hispanic American market--research which, of course, might
uncover the prevalence of the basest "silent majority" attitudes. And of
course, I'll betcha that Joe'n'Jane American Silent Majority Philistine don't
know or care beans about high concepts like 70s Retro, Pop Camp, ad infinitum,
either...
What it proves is that at its worst, raw, artless research is what leads to the
tyranny of the majority.
And remember this when you're bombarded by the betrayed folk left
disenfranchised by the current state of radio--they may not be the means to
*saving* radio per se, but to blithely brush them and their perspectives off as
"fringe" (and, presumably, Joe'n'Jane American Silent Majority Philistine is
"desirable" by comparison) adds insult to injury. It's what I've called in the
past the "let'em eat CDs" attitude--and in this age of MP3, Napster, et al, more
and more of the radio protesters are saying "okay, good riddance". Which is why
"radio sucks" isn't the mantra it was even two years ago...
And in a way, I'm encouraging them. So you shouldn't be griping--I'm driving
the extraneous fringe element out for you;-)
David Eduardo
<ad...@interlog.com> wrote in message news:3984A212...@interlog.com...
Sounds a bit patronizing. My position or point is that I don't program
stations in English, and I disqualify myself from an intimate knowledge of
the right rotation patterns for a Classic Rock station. My area is general
market radio in Latin America, and, to an extent, Spanish language radio in
the US. I have livd most of my career outside the Continental US, so have
never seen a Seinfeld program, never witnessed Happy Days or Leave it to
Beaver. I know of thier existence, their influence and their nature, but
don't relate personally to them... and other artefacts of US culture of the
60's, 70's, 80's and today.
However, I have been a student of American (as in "the USA") radio for
decades, using many of the developments in the US advantageously in other
places. I've recorded many a jingle in Dallas, done many cross country trips
monitoring. I was in LA when Drake kicked off KHJ to se how new developments
might impact my Top 40 station in South America. I've delved deeply into
Arbitron, research techniques and programming practices because of the
universality of good radio techniques.
However, I work almost exclusively in Spanish with an audience that is
similarly uncerned with the cultural icons of mainstream US. In this, I'm no
different than the A/C programmer who would not be asked to program an AA
station but is certainly qualified to talk about the techniques used to
determine listener tastes and other general items. Now, the A/C PD may not
know which are the most powerful Grateful Dead cuts (nor do I... I'd
probably not recognize a single one), but they can definitely discuss many
other aspects of the industry. And all without being characterised as a rube
or a bohunk.
I am dismissive of those who are unwilling to observe what works and what
does not. I don't care if you are in Durban, Bogotá or Detroit, a researched
playlist will always beat an untested one. Playing stiffs will not be
appreciated by the audience. Entertaining talent will always beat
mechanical, boring and pretentious talent. Fun contests will beat dumb ones.
Good audio will help beat the muddy distoreted and compressed station. A
good signal will beat a bad one. Etc. There is nothing that being Hispanic
or not or being bilingual or not has to do with good radio. There is nothing
half baked about the common elements of succesful stations...
>
> Unless, of course, it's a sign of using the rawest form of research in
order to
> "understand" the non-Hispanic American market--research which, of course,
might
> uncover the prevalence of the basest "silent majority" attitudes. And of
> course, I'll betcha that Joe'n'Jane American Silent Majority Philistine
don't
> know or care beans about high concepts like 70s Retro, Pop Camp, ad
infinitum,
> either...
Huh? Research involves asking people what they want. And what they don't
want. Not all research is music testing, and, generally, one selects a
research organizations based on its ability to find out things about the
local audience.
>
> What it proves is that at its worst, raw, artless research is what leads
to the
> tyranny of the majority.
Research is a science. Interpretation is the art. You just revealed a bias
that jades your ability to see research for what it is... a reflection of
what people want in organized form. The key element is being able to
interpret the research, something that does require local or regional
knowledge and, hopefull, a group collaborative effort rather than an
autocratic style.
>
> And remember this when you're bombarded by the betrayed folk left
> disenfranchised by the current state of radio--they may not be the means
to
> *saving* radio per se, but to blithely brush them and their perspectives
off as
> "fringe" (and, presumably, Joe'n'Jane American Silent Majority Philistine
is
> "desirable" by comparison) adds insult to injury. It's what I've called
in the
> past the "let'em eat CDs" attitude--and in this age of MP3, Napster, et
al, more
> and more of the radio protesters are saying "okay, good riddance". Which
is why
> "radio sucks" isn't the mantra it was even two years ago...
I have not been bombarded, and I don't think that the industry as a whole
has been. I've cited statistics (with sources) that show that overall
listening is at a level similar with that of the late 40's and the glory
days of Top 40 in the 50's and 60's. That there are new distribution
technologies noone denies. My contention is that the content providers will
generally be the same as those who bring you terrestrial radio and that the
same concepts will prevail. There are always niche markets to be served by
highly specialized programming and the internet and direct satellite will
help here. People have always enjoyed having recordings of their favorite
music to enjoy in a specialized way... whether laquer 78's or MP3s and that
does not change radio as a fundamentally mass-appeal medium however it is
transmitted and received.
>
> And in a way, I'm encouraging them. So you shouldn't be griping--I'm
driving
> the extraneous fringe element out for you;-)
The extraneous fringe element has always existed. They simply have new ways
to find what their more specialized or esoteric tastes demand. This is good.
Oh, yeah. Radio is not just a music delivery system. Otherwise, there would
not be talk, sports and information stations and we would not have weather,
news and concert information on local stations. And, most especially, you
are forgetting about entertainment beyond the music, whether it be Imus,
Stern, Rush, Mancow or the local guy who participates in every Little League
game and civic event.
Mark Howell
<haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote:
> We also had a much more loyal following, in those days. I can recall being
>at stations which had gone through a format change and having listeners call
>with complaints about the new format but they'd almost always tell me that
>they'd "try to like the new music" because "the people at your station are
>soooo friendly and familiar that I feel as if I know them!" (Switch formats
>TODAY and see how many of these calls you get!)
Listeners had far fewer choices then. They were more loyal because
they had no alternative. Today you don't even have to switch format
to lose them. Play one song they don't like, or do one bit that
doesn't work, and they're gone instantly--because they now do have
alternatives.
> Problem was, though, that there had to be a way to take that "friendly and
>familiar personality" out of the equation. THAT kind of listener loyalty
>also allows your talent to ask for more money. (Damn! What can we do...
>OH!!! I've got it! Here, rush these 3x5 index cards into the control room
>and instruct everyone that we are now "Lite Rock, Less Talk"! THAT should
>stop these "personalities"!)
There is nowhere near enough genuine talent, as opposed to babbling
wanna-bes, to staff all the radio stations currently on the air. I
know this because as part of my job I occasionally have to hire
people. Most of these so-called "personalities" have little to say,
and without direction will use as many words as possible to say it.
Technology is rapidly making these folks obsolete. OTOH, genuine
talent--the kind that can truly stand out and make people take
notice--is always in demand.
Mark Howell
News Director, KUZZ AM/FM, KCWR (FM)
Bakersfield, CA
Robert Bass
>David Gates' "Took the Last Train", peaked at #30 as a current in 1978. 178
>other songs peaked at #29 or above that year, including the more widely
>known title cut from the same album "Goodbye Girl" at #15.
>
>At first glance that's a better song to test. It has the benefit of added
>exposure through the MGM hit movie "Goodbye Girl," which captured an Oscar
>for Best Actor Richard Dreyfuss and four Golden Globes. But the title song
>was never nominated for either award, and didn't even rank high enough as a
>single to make Billboard's Top 100 for the year.
Steve,
You may need to doyble check your facts. Goodbye Girl did indeed make the
hottest hot 100 list for the year of 1978, at position #77.
Robert Bass
Mesquite, TX
Steve Crowley
"Robert Bass" <robb...@aol.com> quoted "Steve Crowley" St...@Crowley.net in
saying:
> >David Gates' <snip> "Goodbye Girl" <snip> didn't even rank high enough as
a
single to make Billboard's Top 100 for the year.<<
and Robert then replied:
> You may need to double check your facts. Goodbye Girl did indeed make the
hottest hot 100 list for the year of 1978, at position #77.<
Thanks for the correction, Robert. And apologies to David Gates. Goodbye
Girl's ranking on the year-end chart is a tribute to the song's staying
power back then.
I wrote that post from the road without my Whitburn handy. Lyrics World
online ranking listed a Billboard Top 100 chart peak of #15, and a tie for
#105 of the 231 songs making the Top 40 in 1978. But as Robert points out
peaks don't tell the whole story.
Robert Bass
>Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never even be
>*allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into cultural
>purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized marginalia.
70's Retro????
Hmmm well I can tell you that KEOM-FM 88.5 (www.keom.fm), which is owned and
operated by the Mesquite I.S.D. spins 70's Top 40. Yes this is a public school
district in Mesquite, Texas, and yes there are student DJ's in the program
(mostly high school Juniors and Seinors).
ad...@interlog.com
> ad...@interlog.com writes:
>
> >Uh, yeah, as if 70s retro never hit the high schools. Or would never even be
> >*allowed* to hit the high schools, instead being locked away into cultural
> >purgatory. And those who *do* choose 70s retro are cretinized marginalia.
>
> 70's Retro????
>
> Hmmm well I can tell you that KEOM-FM 88.5 (www.keom.fm), which is owned and
> operated by the Mesquite I.S.D. spins 70's Top 40. Yes this is a public school
> district in Mesquite, Texas, and yes there are student DJ's in the program
> (mostly high school Juniors and Seinors).
Hey, slip them a copy of David Gates' "Took The Last Train" and see them turn into
Topher Grace in a second;-)
Drew A. Durigan
<St...@Crowley.net> writes:
>Terry, although the album "Goodbye Girl" is a concensus as "Best of Artist"
>for David Gates post-Bread solo career, the song "Took the Last Train" only
>peaked at #30 as a single in Billboard's Hot 100 during 1978. As such, it'd
>be rare to find a market where it would have achieved great exposure as a
>current.
I distinctly remember this song WAS played in heavy rotation on KDWB (CHR) in
my native Minneapolis during the fall of 1978. During their first incarnation
of Top 40 on FM (1976-79), KDWB had a most appealing quirk of playing several
songs in heavy, current rotation which only became mid-charters nationally.
Other examples that I can readilly remember include "Whatever Happened to Benny
Santini" by Chris Rea, "Home and Dry" by Gerry Rafferty, "Get it Right Next
Time" by Gerry Rafferty, "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" by the Beatles (1977 re-release),
and "This Night Won't Last Forever" by Michael Johnson.
-Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
Martin Nathan
There were some really excellent mid-tempo pop tunes around late 78 to
about mid 81. People like to say this period of music sucked, but
they're full of it. I'd take it over the current crop of tunes any
old day.
MN
Robert Bass
Don MacMillan
"Martin Nathan" <MNat...@Worldnet.Att.Net> wrote in message:
> BS- That is the kind of oldie that stations should dig out once in
> awhile.
*IF* there's reson to believe that the core listeners WANT to hear it....and
won't tune to your competitor.
> Most listeners could care less about research.
Wrong way bud....
RESEARCH tells you *what* the listeners care about.
You've got to get the cart in front of the horse before you can make some
assumptions.
DM
Don MacMillan
> "Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> replied:
> > I didn't mean to say that most people would anxiously await it's next
> play... But, an occasional play, as a means of "breaking the monotony" is
> good.
Lets hope that some of your listeners won't "break the monotony" by
switching to your competitors station...and finding something they like
better...
Why would you give your listeners reason to leave your station by playing a
weaker song? (With the assumption that your competito is playing a much
stronger song at the very same moment?)
> ... Occasionally, it's actually good to "do something different and
> unpredictable"!
Gee...Our audience is coming to us for their favorite oldies...let's be
UNPREDICTABLE and play one of their least favorite...or least recognized
oldies...
> > ...but,
> we SHOULD be running one or, if time allows, two of these "forgotten
> treasures" by each hour...<
Why? If your research is credible and tells you that few people care about
the song...or worse yet....DISLIKE the song....why give ANY of your audience
reason to flip to a competitor?
IF the reason is that YOU as a staffer are sick of certain songs...or it
give YOU a charge to air some "misplaced memory"...then that ain't good
programming sense.
DM
Broadcast Services
From: "Don MacMillan" <dmacmillan@*NO SPAM*mailandnews.com>
> IF the reason is that YOU as a staffer are sick of certain songs...or it
> give YOU a charge to air some "misplaced memory"...then that ain't good
> programming sense.
Not at all. In fact, MY (since I seem to deserve "all caps", in your eyes)
decisions are based on "research" just as much as yours. However, I prefer
to perform my own LOCAL research. And, NO, NONE of my LOCAL research is
"personally biased". I just have the knowledge to do it with the resources
at hand and not by sending mega-bucks to an out of town "consultant".
Done it before (in several different markets). Made it work. Was happy
with it (as were the listeners and the owners). You run your "predictable"
station. I'll run my "unpredictable" station. I'll have an audience that'll
equal yours in numbers. My audience, however, won't be "dumbed-down".
Broadcast Services
news:8m8a84$25eg$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> You've got to get the cart in front of the horse before you can make some
> assumptions.
He's making the same "assumptions" the consultant would generally be
making...
--
David Eduardo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don MacMillan" <dmacmillan@*NO SPAM*mailandnews.com>
>
>
> > IF the reason is that YOU as a staffer are sick of certain songs...or it
> > give YOU a charge to air some "misplaced memory"...then that ain't good
> > programming sense.
>
>
> Not at all. In fact, MY (since I seem to deserve "all caps", in your
eyes)
> decisions are based on "research" just as much as yours. However, I prefer
> to perform my own LOCAL research. And, NO, NONE of my LOCAL research is
> "personally biased". I just have the knowledge to do it with the resources
> at hand and not by sending mega-bucks to an out of town "consultant".
Consultants don't do the research... research is done locallly, with local
listeners, with local recruiters. The only thing that is not usually done
locally is tabulation. Then, the interpretation and implementation is done
locally. Consultants are used because they do research projects dozens and
dozens of times a year, and know the tricks, pitfalls and intracacies of
making projects successful. The local staff may only have one research
project a year, and may not have research backgorunds.
You may know it is too warm in your building, too. But you don't try to
install air conditioning on your own in most cases. The experts know the
codes, the suppliers and the methods of putting a well functioning system
in. Same with research. It is a product you buy to make your station more
appealing to listeners. Period.
> Done it before (in several different markets). Made it work. Was happy
> with it (as were the listeners and the owners). You run your "predictable"
> station. I'll run my "unpredictable" station. I'll have an audience
that'll
> equal yours in numbers. My audience, however, won't be "dumbed-down".
Then why are you selling $295 LPFM applications instead of programming? I'd
think the satisfaction, the rewards and the stimulation of a programming
position would be most attractive.
Don MacMillan
> He's making the same "assumptions" the consultant would generally be
> making...
Please elaborate then... His statement was:
>> Most listeners could care less about research.
And my comment is that the research TELLS YOU what the listeners care about.
His assumption is that you *should* play songs that are not coming back with
strong test scores.
I don't know any consultant that would encourage that practice.
DM
Steve Crowley
>>Most listeners could care less about research.<<
"Don MacMillan" <dmacm...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>RESEARCH tells you *what* the listeners care about. (ś)You've got to get
the cart in front of the horse before you can make some assumptions.<
Martin, bear with me while I address that in reverse order, since that seems
to be what make makes sense to Don :-)...
4. One purpose of conducting research is to reduce the number of
assumptions. Making more assumptions afterward is self-defeating... like
Don's cart scheme...
3. If you wish the horse to pull the cart rather than rest in its shade, you
might want to try putting the horse in front of the cart.
2c. Research doesn't necessarily tell what listeners care about, unless
you've asked them to tell you that as an open-ended question.
2b. Music testing is a feedback loop. If you've used it before to control
exposure of a specific song, it's a ratification vote on what you did with
the information. If you haven't researched the song before, the process
ratifies a programmer's previous assumptions.
2a. Music testing represents a narrow demographic sample's reaction to an
evocative yet narrow time portion of a narrow selection of musical titles
deemed of interest to a narrowly defined format superimposed on a narrow
number of available response options in a completely artificial listening
environment.
1. Martin's on the right track... because a listener's interest is narrower
still; getting a response and acknowledgement when they really have taken
the time to tell you what they care about. In that moment, your research is
completely irrelevant to their desire.
I'd like to meet "dave" <da...@543dv.com> (of Clear Channel / New Orleans)
and shake his hand, because in the post that started this thread, he offered
an observation of today's Napster "listening universe" patterns that's
potentially as important to media as the one about jukebox usage Todd Storz
used as the basis of Top 40 radio.
If you missed it, "dave" <da...@543dv.com> said:
>>>After a year of experimenting with Napster, and looking over other users'
playlists, I found that the sheer variety of music is simply.. amazing. A
Napster client that lists a Kid Rock song is as likely to have Natalie
Merchant and/or Run DMC on their playlist (which means that these songs are
on their computers, ready for listening.)
(ś)
Looking over these Napster playlists, I *never* saw a user's playlist that
reflected a single genre of music. I was hoping to find Napster clients
with a taste for music that matched our playlist *exactly.* I was not even
fortunate enough to find a single user that even resembled our playlist even
vaguely, after thousands of samples. <<<
Dave, you found something far more valuable than what you were looking
for... and perhaps a calling as an investigative attorney. Best wishes for a
fruitful and productive law career.
Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
"Research can determine the three most popular ingredients of jambalaya.
Further testing will tell you a recipe containing only those ingredients
isn't jambalaya any more."
David Eduardo
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> wrote in message
news:92qi5.17283$GS1.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>
> If you missed it, "dave" <da...@543dv.com> said:
> >>>After a year of experimenting with Napster, and looking over other
users'
> playlists, I found that the sheer variety of music is simply.. amazing. A
> Napster client that lists a Kid Rock song is as likely to have Natalie
> Merchant and/or Run DMC on their playlist (which means that these songs
are
> on their computers, ready for listening.)
> (ś)
> Looking over these Napster playlists, I *never* saw a user's playlist that
> reflected a single genre of music. I was hoping to find Napster clients
> with a taste for music that matched our playlist *exactly.* I was not
even
> fortunate enough to find a single user that even resembled our playlist
even
> vaguely, after thousands of samples. <<<
>
> Dave, you found something far more valuable than what you were looking
> for... and perhaps a calling as an investigative attorney. Best wishes for
a
> fruitful and productive law career.
Long, long ago when looking over questionnaires for a long defunct survey
company, I realized that most people did not listen to a single station but
rather a group of stations and, most important, that they listened to
stations that were different. It was more unusual to find an A/C listener
who listened to two different A/C stations than to find a listener who
listened to one CHR, one A/C and one oldies station. Later, when doing
one-one-one research on an informal basis, I found that the changes were do
to mood shifts and appropriateness for needs. People have wider musical
tastes than often thought, but, on the other hand, they know not to expect a
wide range of music on one station; in fact, they prefer specific stations
that address their specific moods or needs.
Steve Crowley
>Long, long ago when looking over questionnaires for a long defunct survey
company, I realized that most people did not listen to a single station but
rather a group of stations and, most important, that they listened to
stations that were different.<
A pattern confirmed in Arbitron's July 2000 study of how people migrate
between their first (P1) and second (P2) most prefered stations...
http://www.arbitron.com/studies1.htm#P1_P2
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> continues:
> It was more unusual to find an A/C listener who listened to two different
A/C stations than to find a listener who listened to one CHR, one A/C and
one oldies station.<
Particularly true for "general audiences" -- Arbitron's 1997 "Top Stations"
report includes data which reveals minority audiences clump more tightly.
http://www.arbitron.com/studies1.htm#ats
In David's example, the listener rarely if ever sees boundaries between
formats the same way a programmer does. Listeners perceptions of musical
genre are more akin to a continuum than compartments. For example, while
listeners may have a preference for either, a majority of listeners feel
"Classic" and "Alternative" are both expressions of "Rock." If one views
CHR, AC and Oldies as expressions of "Pop Hits" the distinctions are not as
great as David suggests.
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> continues:
>Later, when doing one-one-one research on an informal basis, I found that
the changes were (due) to mood shifts and appropriateness for needs.<
Buzz Maintenance 101. We should be paid as well as pharmacists, don't you
think?
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> concludes:
>People have wider musical tastes than often thought, but, on the other
hand, they know not to expect a wide range of music on one station; in fact,
they prefer specific stations that address their specific moods or needs.<
If that last statement were true, why have overall levels of average persons
using radio declined as radio offered more "alternatives" through increased
format specialization?
http://www.duncanradio.com/Major%20Warning%20Signs%20for%20Radio.htm
David, when all your subjects know the limits of "how radio works," I
believe what you're observing is a conditioned response due to years of
exposure to existing conditions on the radio (including fragmentation), not
necessarily an intrinsic preference native to the listener.
Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
"There is a relationship between diminished expectations and diminishing
returns."
David Eduardo
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> wrote in message
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> continues:
> > It was more unusual to find an A/C listener who listened to two
different
> A/C stations than to find a listener who listened to one CHR, one A/C and
> one oldies station.<
>
> Particularly true for "general audiences" -- Arbitron's 1997 "Top
Stations"
> report includes data which reveals minority audiences clump more tightly.
> http://www.arbitron.com/studies1.htm#ats
This is only a function of limited alternatives in many if not most cases.
As we see 11 separate program alternatives and a half dozen distinct formats
for Spanish speaking Hispanics in Los Angeles, I see the same general market
tendencies being mirrored. A better example would be Puerto Rico, where what
is a minority on the mainland is the entire market! I've reviewed every PR
Arbitron and the questionaires for surveys there dating back to about 1970.
The usage of dissimilar mood or need stations is as strong there as it is
among the general market in any large US metro's non-ethnic population.
Since 77 stations made the last PR book, and there are dozens of different
formats, this observation is probably also a prediction of what will happen
in markets in the US where minority or ethnic targeted stations proliferate
and differentiate through unique formats.
>
> In David's example, the listener rarely if ever sees boundaries between
> formats the same way a programmer does. Listeners perceptions of musical
> genre are more akin to a continuum than compartments. For example, while
> listeners may have a preference for either, a majority of listeners feel
> "Classic" and "Alternative" are both expressions of "Rock." If one views
> CHR, AC and Oldies as expressions of "Pop Hits" the distinctions are not
as
> great as David suggests.
I'd add that listeners look for textures and feelings more than saying, "Oh,
I feel like listening to an Adult Contemporary station that plays my
favorites from the 70's, 80's, 90's and today." If you look at the logic,
following a tedious day of work, one listener may want a tranquil, relaxing
station and another may seek to break loose with pounding heavy metal!
Neither is looking for a format but, rather, a mood or feel. This is one of
the problems I find with station postioners; stations describe the format
rather than the use and feel of the format.
>
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> continues:
> >Later, when doing one-one-one research on an informal basis, I found that
> the changes were (due) to mood shifts and appropriateness for needs.<
>
> Buzz Maintenance 101. We should be paid as well as pharmacists, don't you
> think?
Ain't it amazing how few PDs actually talk to their listeners in informal
environments. (I purposely made this a statement rather than an open ended
question.) I have an interesting anecdote, and it is sort of public domain
as it happened years ago in a market not in the continental US. I did a
research project to determine whether an all salsa station would work in
Puerto Rico. Now, salsa is the equivalent in some respects of country music
there, and is very mass appeal. However, no FM did pure salsa... they mixed
it with dance in English. The research showed that listeners would be bored
by the monotony of all salsa. I was not convinced, and went with a gang to a
bunch of record stores. Salsa buyers did not buy dance and dance buyers did
not buy salsa. I did the format. First Mediatrend gave the station a 22.5
and the second one tossed us a 33.5... in a 35 station market. There has to
be some interpretation of what research means... and an understanding that
most folks can't visualize things they have never heard. Fortunately, I was
both GM and PD of the station, so the PD reported to himself and the risk
was a bit less... We are not, as an industry, big on risk taking today,
though.
>
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> concludes:
>
> >People have wider musical tastes than often thought, but, on the other
> hand, they know not to expect a wide range of music on one station; in
fact,
> they prefer specific stations that address their specific moods or needs.<
>
> If that last statement were true, why have overall levels of average
persons
> using radio declined as radio offered more "alternatives" through
increased
> format specialization?
> http://www.duncanradio.com/Major%20Warning%20Signs%20for%20Radio.htm
I don't think that the culprit is specialization. In fact, I think I could
make a case for the opposite... that specializationor segmentation has been
a great help to radio in keeping audience levels still relatively high
despite all the new entertainment alternatives being offered.
>
> David, when all your subjects know the limits of "how radio works," I
> believe what you're observing is a conditioned response due to years of
> exposure to existing conditions on the radio (including fragmentation),
not
> necessarily an intrinsic preference native to the listener.
Like the effects of format segmentation, both your opinion and mine will be
nearly pure conjecture or be based on individual anecdotal evidence since
radio does not exist in a vacuum. If we go back to a time when there were
fewer differentiated formats, such as when Duncan began in '74 or '75,
listening levels were lower than they are today. I guess I could make a case
that radio has only held its own due to new formats and special interest
formats at the same time as the computer age dawned and developed. However,
I can't defend this except by by subjective opinion and you know what that
is already.
There is probably a point to be made that so many stations has simply
confused listeners so they don't really know what is offered and have not
tried many stations they would possibly like. I sure don't know what all my
DTV satellite channels do!!
>
> Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
> "There is a relationship between diminished expectations and diminishing
> returns."
Good points, Steve. I'm enjoying this exchange.
haw...@my-deja.com
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Then why are you selling $295 LPFM applications
instead of programming? I'd
> think the satisfaction, the rewards and the
stimulation of a programming
> position would be most attractive.
>
>
I had responded to this message on yesterday
but, for some strange reason, the reply never
made it...
Anyway, I'm on a temporary "free" ISP until I
contact a "real" ISP and get connected in my new
and larger (constructed during the past three
months) home. Also, I'm temporarily writing from
my NEW laptop. My regular SIX computers are still
loaded on the moving truck and will be set up
over the next 2 days.
Were I still in programming, none of this would
be happening! I'd be "on top" when I held a job
(usually by saying things such as "Yes, sir!
Anything you say, sir! I agree with you totally,
sir!" and, worst of all: "What would you like my
opinion to be on this subject, sir?"
Tomorrow, I'm thinking of going out and buying
myself a new conversion van or some
similar "toy"...
Wonder why I'm not still in programming? I
don't like doing a job unless I'm allowed to do
it PROPERLY and as I can do it best. Therefore I
lost interest in the "required politics" of that
position. The "Herb Tarlecks" can have it. (THe
money and the new toys also have a LOT to do with
it...)
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, Texas 75457
(903) 562-1998 Voice only until the phone
company gets the other new lines set up...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
haw...@radiolink.net
Steve Crowley
Terry Keith Hammond - President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services - Mount Vernon, TX
-- and --
Mark Howell - News Director
KUZZ AM/FM, KCWR (FM) - Bakersfield, CA
...were discussing listener loyalty, or lack thereof, today Vs the 1970's:
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net>
> > We also had a much more loyal following, in those days. I can recall
being at stations which had gone through a format change and having
listeners call with complaints about the new format but they'd almost always
tell me that they'd "try to like the new music" because "the people at your
station are soooo friendly and familiar that I feel as if I know them!"
(Switch formats TODAY and see how many of these calls you get!)<<
"Mark Howell" <mhowe...@my-deja.com>
> Listeners had far fewer choices then. They were more loyal because they
had no alternative. Today you don't even have to switch format to lose them.
Play one song they don't like, or do one bit that doesn't work, and they're
gone instantly--because they now do have alternatives.<
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net>
> > Problem was, though, that there had to be a way to take that "friendly
and familiar personality" out of the equation. THAT kind of listener loyalty
also allows your talent to ask for more money. (Damn! What can we do...
OH!!! I've got it! Here, rush these 3x5 index cards into the control room
and instruct everyone that we are now "Lite Rock, Less Talk"! THAT should
stop these "personalities"!)<<
"Mark Howell" <mhowe...@my-deja.com>
> There is nowhere near enough genuine talent, as opposed to babbling
wanna-bes, to staff all the radio stations currently on the air. I know this
because as part of my job I occasionally have to hire people. Most of these
so-called "personalities" have little to say, and without direction will use
as many words as possible to say it. Technology is rapidly making these
folks obsolete. OTOH, genuine talent--the kind that can truly stand out and
make people take notice--is always in demand.<
Think of it as a scale. Start on the low end with COMMODITY, and move
through PRODUCT and SERVICE, towards RELATIONSHIP at the high end.
A COMMODITY is raw material that's the same regardless of the source. You
can get it from many suppliers and corn will be corn.
A PRODUCT is raw material processed in a way that adds value and potentially
a recognizable brand name. Shuck it, cook it, can it, slap on a label and
it's not just corn anymore, now it's Green Giant corn.
A SERVICE adds the element of addressing the consumers needs/wants/desires.
When Green Giant puts butter sauce and sweet red peppers on the corn and
delivers it to the store in a ready to boil bag, they've taken a commodity,
created a product and performed a service addressing consumers desire for
convenience.
A RELATIONSHIP results from satisfaction with the service and an
appreciative awareness by the consumer. That's what repeat business is made
of. It's the dream of Green Giant's marketers to have consumers go directly
to their display in the frozen food section when they think of corn, not the
unbranded lower-profit produce aisle.
Now where does your radio station fall on the scale?
Music is a commodity, just like corn. The same song(s) can be delivered by
many sources. There aren't any super-secret-mojo spells. Anyone with a T-180
tape in the VHS or a subscription to MusicBase can figure out what you're
doing with your music, and replicate the pattern(s).
All the greater possibilities of becoming a branded product, performing a
service or establishing a relationship with your listeners are contingent on
offering more than a commodity.
If as Terry said you... >>rush these 3x5 index cards into the control room
and instruct everyone that we are now "Lite Rock, Less Talk"<< ... you're
only selling a commodity, something a listener can get elsewhere -- on
terrestrial bands, internet streaming, cable with DMX/Music Choice and soon
satellite with XM/Sirius.
If as Mark feared... >Play one song they don't like, or do one bit that
doesn't work, and they're gone instantly--because they now do have
alternatives< ... it's not only that the listeners have alternatives, it's
because broadcasters have diminished the listeners expectations as they
moved radio downscale, toward commodity, rather than upscale toward
relationship.
In his 1954 autobiography "Treadmill To Oblivion," the late Fred Allen said
once radio, as the first free entertainment piped into homes, was a utility
like running water, but less respected.
Water is a commodity. But it's also the main ingredient in Starbuck's
coffee, Coca Cola and Snapple iced tea... all of which are considerably more
profitable.
Whether beverage or broadcasting, it's what we add that makes the
difference.
Steve Crowley
of formats...
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > It was more unusual to find an A/C listener who listened to two
different A/C stations than to find a listener who listened to one CHR, one
A/C and one oldies station.<<<
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> commented:
>> Particularly true for "general audiences" -- Arbitron's 1997 "Top
Stations"
report includes data which reveals minority audiences clump more tightly.
http://www.arbitron.com/studies1.htm#ats <<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> replied:
> This is only a function of limited alternatives in many if not most cases.
As we see 11 separate program alternatives and a half dozen distinct formats
for Spanish speaking Hispanics in Los Angeles, I see the same general market
tendencies being mirrored. <
It's not always language, but sometimes identity.
For the purpose of discussion, let's think of Country and Rock as ethnic
formats. While it's audience speaks the dominant language, offered in dozens
of formats, 27% percent of Country's first preference listeners (P1) choose
a 2nd Country station as their #2 listening choice (P2). 30% of Mainstream
Rockers and 37% of Active Rock P1's chose another Rock variant as P2.
If a linguistic minority (whether Spanish on the mainland US, or English on
Puerto Rico) has limited options in their dominant language, it's only
natural that their listening would be concentrated. And in the Top Stations
report (cited above) 55% of those whose first choice was a Spanish speaking
format chose another Spanish speaking format as their second choice.
Among Blacks, who comprise more than 80% of the Urban Contemporary or Urban
AC audience, 55% of listeners chose another Urban Contemporary or Urban AC
as their second choice, while 16% picked Rhythmic CHR.
Outside of the 22% of MOR P1's who chose a different genre (News-Talk) as
their P2, in the remainder of the general market only about 16% of the
average format's primary listeners picked any one other format as their
second choice.
Whether racial, linguistic or self-selected by identification, minority
audiences clump within their prefered genres.
David Eduardo
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> wrote in message
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> replied:
> > This is only a function of limited alternatives in many if not most
cases.
> As we see 11 separate program alternatives and a half dozen distinct
formats
> for Spanish speaking Hispanics in Los Angeles, I see the same general
market
> tendencies being mirrored. <
>
>
> For the purpose of discussion, let's think of Country and Rock as ethnic
> formats. While it's audience speaks the dominant language, offered in
dozens
> of formats, 27% percent of Country's first preference listeners (P1)
choose
> a 2nd Country station as their #2 listening choice (P2). 30% of Mainstream
> Rockers and 37% of Active Rock P1's chose another Rock variant as P2.
However, when an oldies station came to town in the South, playing the
proper mix, it tended to share as much as 60% of the leading country station
cume.
>
> If a linguistic minority (whether Spanish on the mainland US, or English
on
> Puerto Rico) has limited options in their dominant language, it's only
> natural that their listening would be concentrated. And in the Top
Stations
> report (cited above) 55% of those whose first choice was a Spanish
speaking
> format chose another Spanish speaking format as their second choice.
This would only be a valid argument if Spanish were of itself a format.
However, there is no such thing as a "Spanish Format." There are stations in
the Spanish language with formats, and, usually, when there are many
stations in Spanish there are a variety of formats. In fact, the listeners
to what is called Regional Mexican Music, of which there are 4 format
variants in Los Angeles, tend not to cume a second regional staiton but,
rather, an A/C, pop/CHR, oldies or talk station as thier second and third
choices for music.
I think you are overlooking the fact that about 52% of LA Hispanics are
highly Spanish dominant and would not be able to use an English language
station. The Hispanics who are bilingual cume both types of stations while
Hispanics who are English dominant seldom cume Spanish language stations.
The issue, though, is that users of Spanish language radio in LA tend to
cume different formats, not various alternatives within the same format. LA
Spanish radio now has about 6 or 7 different formats available to
listeners... on 12 stations.
The linguistic minority in Puerto Rico is so small as to be statistically
insignificant... less than 40 thousand persons out of 4 million are native
English speaking "continentals."
>
> Among Blacks, who comprise more than 80% of the Urban Contemporary or
Urban
> AC audience, 55% of listeners chose another Urban Contemporary or Urban AC
> as their second choice, while 16% picked Rhythmic CHR.
>
> Outside of the 22% of MOR P1's who chose a different genre (News-Talk) as
> their P2, in the remainder of the general market only about 16% of the
> average format's primary listeners picked any one other format as their
> second choice.
>
> Whether racial, linguistic or self-selected by identification, minority
> audiences clump within their prefered genres.
Again, the minority universe is served by fewer signals than the general
market in most parts of the USA. If you look at Memphis, you are seeing
Urban oldies, urban A/C, urban talk, gospel, urban CHR, urban house/hip hop,
urban religious spoken word and such. As the format choices expend, the
chances that a single individual would listen toall the choices decreases.
When WDIA was the only Black station in Memphis, there was not much of a
choice unless the African American listeners wanted to put up with Bobby
Vinton and Brian Highland to hear the Supremes on WMPS or WHBQ.
Martin Nathan
>"Mark Howell" <mhowe...@my-deja.com>
>> There is nowhere near enough genuine talent, as opposed to babbling
>wanna-bes, to staff all the radio stations currently on the air. I know this
>because as part of my job I occasionally have to hire people. Most of these
>so-called "personalities" have little to say, and without direction will use
>as many words as possible to say it. Technology is rapidly making these
>folks obsolete. OTOH, genuine talent--the kind that can truly stand out and
>make people take notice--is always in demand.
This morning as I was driving, I pushed the buttons for four
different FM stations. The songs playing were "Give Me One Good
Reason"-Tracy Chapman, "Who Will Save Your Soul"-Jewel, "One
Headlight"-The Wallflowers, and of course "Am I the Only One" by
Melissa Etheridge. These are all extremely tired, worn out,
overplayed 4 year old songs that should have been buried 3 1/2 years
ago. But obviously stations keep playing them. So how match air
talent does that require when perhaps somebody should have tried to
introduce some other songs by them...
MN
Steve Crowley
> > If a linguistic minority (whether Spanish on the mainland US, or English
on Puerto Rico) has limited options in their dominant language, it's only
natural that their listening would be concentrated. And in the Top Stations
http://www.arbitron.com/studies1.htm#ats ) 55% of those whose first choice
was a Spanish speaking format chose another Spanish speaking format as their
second choice.<<
To which "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> replied:
> This would only be a valid argument if Spanish were of itself a format.
However, there is no such thing as a "Spanish Format." There are stations in
the Spanish language with formats, and, usually, when there are many
stations in Spanish there are a variety of formats. <
David, I believe I was clear, and understand the concept, even if my ability
to state it in Spanish is poor. El español es un lenguaje, no un formato de
radio. If I butchered that, I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to undermine your assertion of variety. In the past you've
been very kind to share your expertise with me outside this newsgroup,
answering questions and explaining various names for musical styles, and to
help further my admittedly limited understanding of Spanish language media.
I am in your debt.
However, if I may ask you to read my statement again, you'll see that I
said: >> 55% of those whose first choice was a Spanish speaking format chose
another Spanish speaking format as their second choice. <<
There is no inference on my part that there is some monolithic "Spanish
format." When I say "Spanish speaking format" the reference is to the
language spoken and or sung within their formats of choice being Spanish.
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> asserted:
> I think you are overlooking the fact that about 52% of LA Hispanics are
highly Spanish dominant and would not be able to use an English language
station. <
No sir. I'm not overlooking, nor criticizing their choices to make use of
media they can understand when I said: >>If a linguistic minority (whether
Spanish on the mainland US, or English on Puerto Rico) has limited options
in their dominant language, it's only natural that their listening would be
concentrated. <<
Perhaps Puerto Rico was a poor choice if the English dominant population is
only 1%. Another language spoken in the Americas might be used as an
example.
If I moved to Sao Paulo, I'd be S.O.L. Eu não falo o português. So let's try
Montreal...
Although it remains an official language of Canada with federal guarantees
that a person may conduct any form of government business in English, a
French speaking majority (including some with separatist leanings) within
Province du Québec has banned English from outdoor advertising and signage
for more than two decades. My options for listening as an Anglophone would
be concentrated among those local stations on which English was spoken (or
dx-ing NY & VT), at least until my understanding of French improved. Perhaps
then I would use French speaking media to help with my education, or in time
develop fluency and a preference for it, as you stated in saying... >The
Hispanics who are bilingual cume both types of stations while Hispanics who
are English dominant seldom cume Spanish language stations.<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> :
> The issue, though, is that users of Spanish language radio in LA tend to
cume different formats, not various alternatives within the same format. LA
Spanish radio now has about 6 or 7 different formats available to
listeners... on 12 stations.<
Fine. No argument from me.
Arbitron's 1997 report profiled demographics for Spanish (language)
Contemporary, the conglomerate of variants labeled as so called "Regional
Mexican," Tejano and Tropical formats individually. But they consolidated
the figures about preferred second choices as "All Spanish Formats." The
year 2000 P1/P2 data adds Spanish News-Talk and Spanish Variety and
preserves the distinction when reporting 2nd choices.
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net>
> > Whether racial, linguistic or self-selected by identification, minority
audiences clump within their preferred genres.<<
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> :
> Again, the minority universe is served by fewer signals than the general
market in most parts of the USA.<
That opens another can of worms, my friend.
Once we remove language as a barrier to comprehension, are we to presume
that listeners are only served when spoken or sung to by people like
themselves?
Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
(Enjoying the annual celebration of "Old Spanish Days" Fiesta. Don't blame
me, I didn't name it, or schedule it in August instead of on Saint Barbara's
official feast day, December 4th.)
David Eduardo
"Steve Crowley" <St...@Crowley.net> wrote in message
> David, I believe I was clear, and understand the concept, even if my
ability
> to state it in Spanish is poor. El español es un lenguaje, no un formato
de
> radio. If I butchered that, I'm sorry.
Sorry. I reread your post and I had definitely misread your meaning. Mea
culpa. In this context, your point is valid.
>
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> :
> > The issue, though, is that users of Spanish language radio in LA tend to
> cume different formats, not various alternatives within the same format.
LA
> Spanish radio now has about 6 or 7 different formats available to
> listeners... on 12 stations.<
>
> Fine. No argument from me.
>
> Arbitron's 1997 report profiled demographics for Spanish (language)
> Contemporary, the conglomerate of variants labeled as so called "Regional
> Mexican," Tejano and Tropical formats individually. But they consolidated
> the figures about preferred second choices as "All Spanish Formats." The
> year 2000 P1/P2 data adds Spanish News-Talk and Spanish Variety and
> preserves the distinction when reporting 2nd choices.
Unfortunately, Arbitron has not recognized the expanding universe of Spanish
radio formats in the US. And of the ones they do believe in, Tejano,
Tropical and Variety don't exist in the LA market. So we are stuck with only
three variants for the LA stations, contemporary, talk and regional Mexican.
Contemporary divides into rock, pop and flavors of A/C. Regional Mexican
divides at least 6 ways, 4 of which are availble in in LA. And they miss out
on oldies entirely, as well as nostalgia/standards.
>
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> :
> > Again, the minority universe is served by fewer signals than the general
> market in most parts of the USA.<
>
> That opens another can of worms, my friend.
>
> Once we remove language as a barrier to comprehension, are we to presume
> that listeners are only served when spoken or sung to by people like
> themselves?
In general, people are much a product of their environment. That's why CHR
and derivitives are pretty monolithic in the teen population. There tends to
be an associative relationship within the groups that society places people
in or the groups people consciously place themselves in. Of course there are
exceptions, but they usually have roots. I like both jazz and R&B oldies,
but that is because I worked as a teen at an urban station with a jazz FM.
Makes me wonder where classical music will be after the 50+ folks who go to
concerts and such die off?
>
> Steve Crowley - Imagination In Action, Santa Barbara
>
> (Enjoying the annual celebration of "Old Spanish Days" Fiesta. Don't blame
> me, I didn't name it, or schedule it in August instead of on Saint
Barbara's
> official feast day, December 4th.)
I've known a number of very pleasant old Spanish folks... and heard my
Puerto Rican daughters called "nice Spanish girls..." It is so widespread,
and, probably, so well intentioned as to no longer get me irritated. I was
there last year for the party, and it was a lot of fun. One of the things,
in fact, that make California so interesting in its diversity and adaptation
of cultures to the local requirements (which in this case seem to be partly
the filling of hotels at double the regular rate...)
Dennis Nuetzel
Broadcast Services wrote in message ...
> Most of my Napster downloading consists of music which is "out of
>print"... But, according to "research" no one would want to hear (for
>instance) David Gates' "Took the Last Train", anyway!
Or in my case, Anne Murray's "What About Me?", a minor hit from the
early to mid 1970's. Tried for the longest time to get a copy. Great sound
too on the download.
Dennis
Martin Nathan
Another one by AM is "Lucky Me" from the late 70's. A nice song that
sounds better the more you hear it. Folks always knock 70's music but
there was never a better decade for MOR pop. Even the
country-pop-rock style of Kenny, Dolly, Crystal, and even Barbra
Mandrell was a lot better than a lot of what passes for music these
days.
MN
MonsterFM.com
Martin Nathan <MNat...@Worldnet.Att.Net> wrote:
> sounds better the more you hear it. Folks always knock 70's music but
> there was never a better decade for MOR pop. Even the
> country-pop-rock style of Kenny, Dolly, Crystal, and even Barbra
> Mandrell was a lot better than a lot of what passes for music these
> days.
>
Amen!!! (And, yes, I relize that I am "dating" myself in saying
this...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, Texas 75457
ad...@interlog.com
which go over previous themes of mine...
1) First, keep in mind that subtle quality that once drew so many to the
marvels of music radio; that it was the MP3, Napster, Gnutella and others like
it, of its time. All this music at your fingertips--and it's FREE! Thus, one
could develop a kind of enlightened-dilletante state of musical conoisseurship
without having to make a single music purchase...or so it seemed. (Well, it
*was* cheaper to get sick of a song strictly over the radio rather than buying
it and playing it until we got sick of it.) A point endlessly forgotten by the
likes of David Eduardo, in their past recommendations that we blow our mazuma on
CDs if we can't find it over the air.
It's interesting; a few years ago, long before MP3 came to be, I was
predicting the advent of a sort of "Joel Whitburn on-line"; that is, an infinite
computer jukebox of, presumably, every Hot 100 track ever. And presumably, one
where the ultra-obscure #100-for-one-week files don't get deleted simply because
they get far, far fewer "hits" than the #1 potboilers. Where we could program
our own "superior" (if self-serving) oldies station and render radio to the
obsolescence pile...
2)...and building upon this, I find that a lot of the complainants are those
raised on/committed to either the "great AM tradition" (i.e. Top 40 and so on)
or the "great FM tradition" (i.e. free-form progressive and so on). Which only
underlies the ultra-strong and ultimately fatal several-decade symbiosis between
"rock culture" and "music radio culture" And now that the notion of a "rock
era" seems increasingly a relic, so goeth the music-radio traditionalist
diehards. Like with the whole debate over David Gates' "Took The Last Train",
and its non-presence on radio these days. I mean, I agree; I'd hypothetically
like to hear something that punctuating the potboilers--though it's at the risk
of reinforcing radio's image as a a culture eternally stuck-in-the WKRP-era,
with PDs wearing Michael McDonald beards and doing SNL Steve Martin routines.
(In which case a dash of "That 70s Show" popular ironizing might act as a
mediator.) But when it comes to the defenders of such music castigating the
contemporary teenpop environment, I don't know; it makes me think of that fatal
hip-hop Waterloo that eviscerated and then scuttled "American Top 40" in the
late 80s/early 90s (i.e. conservative Whitburnites who couldn't hack "The Humpty
Dance"; read Rob Durkee's book for the full gruesome details). It's not that
the present Kasemite environment *isn't* antiseptic and lacking in substance or
surprise; rather, it's that relative to an earlier "teen idol" era (Fabian, et
al) its more Whitburnite critics make me think more of Mitch Miller than of the
then-nascent Beatles/Stones/Dylan monolith. Meanwhile, those even younger and
more progressive-minded have moved onward...and beyond...
3) Re the arguments that in digi/sati/web radio, you'll find the same
"programming" that you'll find over the present airwaves; like, duh. Obvious.
But I'm sad to see "programming" presented/received here as the nadir of sterile
mass entertainment. After all, we're not just talking about sterile, stale AC
satellite programming; we're also talking about paragons of "progressive" radio
such as the BBC's John Peel and New York's Vin Scelsa, who (especially Scelsa,
who's now bereft of a terrestrial outlet and is probably better off for it) gain
a new life over the Web. And keep in mind that while Peel or Scelsa's *content*
may be eclectic and ambitious, their shows are far from free-form disarray; they
are clearly "programmed", and such is a rich, subtle part of their cultish
marvel. Now if only Messrs Wood, Eduardo, et al could point to *these* examples
*as well* when they offer their anti-Billy Bob, new-boss-same-as-old-boss
arguments...
4) And I still haven't read anything that's contradicted my general "typewriter
industry" prognosis for radio. I mean, offer your arguments over audio quality,
slow downloads and buffering, "immediacy", et al--they have their analogies in
why many/most individuals and institutions (including myself!!!!!) were still
reluctant to fully embrace computers in the 80s. Even David Eduardo has, at
best, rationalized rather than refuted my argument--that is, typewriters are
still out there, and most computer users are as banal and matter-of-fact in
their usage, etc...
Dennis Nuetzel
snarfdude wrote in message <3994c72d...@news.sprint.ca>...
>
>> Or in my case, Anne Murray's "What About Me?", a minor hit from the
>>early to mid 1970's.
>
>murray's first album on ARC in 1969, (pre signing with capitol) and in
>1973 the "live" version recorded at the ottawa arts centre (with the
>applause off the top) personally, I prefer the first
>version.....pretty easy to find in canada....
I preferred the "live" version.
Dennis