• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

PLJ SOLD

So, if the big boss were to suddenly have misgivings about having an alternative station in New York, what format could be suggested for 92.3, that would fit in with the rest of the cluster?
 
Least said:
I feel a mess was created about 15 years ago when the decision was made to remain 90s focused, which caused a decline in listenership. And here we are a generation later, and you're right. Rock isn't considered rebellious anymore. But, that isn't because of the genre declining on it's own. It's because of a systemic decision to shut out new bands/acts, which stopped it from evolving in the mainstream. It has evolved, but is now underground. I compare it to tearing down a species natural habitat, thus effecting its evolution. My aim is to call it out and hope someone in terrestrial radio ponders what I am saying and corrects the wrongs that the radio industry did to the format for the last decade and a half. Nobody has tried it with solely modern music. It has been a hybrid of Classic Rock or what is now "new classic rock" under the guise of modern rock.
Click to expand...

The systemic decision you refer to is actually fragmentation. When stations tested newer music, they found that songs divided into separate partisan groups, with each liking significantly different sets of songs and each disliking, often strongly, many of the songs that other groups of listeners liked. That meant that to truly satisfy all the new rock listeners it would take three or more stations. Of course, with the decline in interest in rock in general, that means that no station would be viable in the market.

Current-based rock is not a format. It is three or four formats. And each is anywhere from neutral to unappealing to the partisans of the other formats. There is no consensus.

When I was an early teen, I listened to Top 40. I knew that of every three songs, I'd hate one, love one and be indifferent to the third. But I had no real chooices, as all three local Top 40 stations played the same songs. And I had no other options in the daytime, although at night I could DX WLS or WABC and other distant similar stations... but they played about the same songs. Today, listeners won't put up with disliked songs. They have too many options.

So a rock station that tries to play newer music will end up being liked by nobody and see most of the potential audience going to on-demand and Internet streams.
 
DavidEduardo said:


The systemic decision you refer to is actually fragmentation. When stations tested newer music, they found that songs divided into separate partisan groups, with each liking significantly different sets of songs and each disliking, often strongly, many of the songs that other groups of listeners liked. That meant that to truly satisfy all the new rock listeners it would take three or more stations. Of course, with the decline in interest in rock in general, that means that no station would be viable in the market.

Current-based rock is not a format. It is three or four formats. And each is anywhere from neutral to unappealing to the partisans of the other formats. There is no consensus.

When I was an early teen, I listened to Top 40. I knew that of every three songs, I'd hate one, love one and be indifferent to the third. But I had no real chooices, as all three local Top 40 stations played the same songs. And I had no other options in the daytime, although at night I could DX WLS or WABC and other distant similar stations... but they played about the same songs. Today, listeners won't put up with disliked songs. They have too many options.

So a rock station that tries to play newer music will end up being liked by nobody and see most of the potential audience going to on-demand and Internet streams.
Click to expand...

Enlighten me how there were different offsets of Rock in the 90s, and terrestrial radio took chances playing it all together. In 99, we could turn on a rock radio station and hear:

Korn
The Offspring
Blink-182
Metallica
Foo Fighters
Pearl Jam
Limp Bizkit
Ozzy Osbourne
Godsmack
Megadeth
Sublime
Staind
...and so on.

So, it was known to work. Enlighten me why the change in mentality, other than terrestrial radio neutering the playlist. In the 90s there was Punk, Metal, Nu-Metal, Funk, Grunge, on so on. Again, you're wrong. It was a systemic decision to limit the playlist. It wasn't the listeners.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. My original critique stands. The Creed, Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd music of the early 2000s failed. Instead of forging forward, the radio industry retreated to the 90s songs, and blamed the listeners for not even trying for 15 years.
 
Last edited:
Least said:
Enlighten me how there were different offsets of Rock in the 90s, and terrestrial radio took chances playing it all together. In 99, we could turn on a rock radio station and hear:


So, it was known to work. Enlighten me why the change in mentality, other than terrestrial radio neutering the playlist. In the 90s there was Punk, Metal, Nu-Metal, Funk, Grunge, on so on. Again, you're wrong. It was a systemic decision to limit the playlist. It wasn't the listeners.
Click to expand...

I watched rock tastes fragment in the 90's. While the preferences were fairly monolithic in the 70's, the schism came in the 80's and by the 90's if you tested alternative or more current active or modern rock, you got decided subsets that liked separate sets of songs, with some overlap. Gradually, the overlaps decreased and you had a musical Martin Luther vs. The Pope.

When tests results were looked at under cluster analysis, you could see the differences between two or three groups. Alternative, by the mid-90's, could got to the point that you could split by 2 clusters, 3 clusters and even 4 clusters out of a total and find marked differences on most of the songs.

As a result, stations could only play those songs that had some degree of consensus. But there were still huge differences between different listener subsets. One group would average 50 to 60, just above neutral, and the other might average in the 80's, or "one of my favorites" while a third group might be in the "it's OK, l like it" 70's range. But at least we could keep from playing the ones that we knew would cause one subset if not two to tune out.

One classic rock station I programmed also played currents and recurrents in the mix, which ran from 1967 to the present. At no point were there more than 4 or 5 true hit currents, and recurrents were just a handful. And to keep everyone happy, out of more than 30 years of rock songs, we could only find 450 playable ones. But the real story is that another station came after us with a library more than three times larger. After 6 months, we continued to have a 22 share, and they got a 1.8.
 
Last edited:
Country Aircheck reports that WPLJ's Terry Donovan has already found a new gig:

Former Cumulus Hot AC WPLJ/New York weekend host Terry Donovan has joined crosstown Entercom WNSH for similar duties. WPLJ signed off last Friday (5/31).
 
DavidEduardo said:


I watched rock tastes fragment in the 90's. While the preferences were fairly monolithic in the 70's, the schism came in the 80's and by the 90's if you tested alternative or more current active or modern rock, you got decided subsets that liked separate sets of songs, with some overlap. Gradually, the overlaps decreased and you had a musical Martin Luther vs. The Pope.

When tests results were looked at under cluster analysis, you could see the differences between two or three groups. Alternative, by the mid-90's, could got to the point that you could split by 2 clusters, 3 clusters and even 4 clusters out of a total and find marked differences on most of the songs.

As a result, stations could only play those songs that had some degree of consensus. But there were still huge differences between different listener subsets. One group would average 50 to 60, just above neutral, and the other might average in the 80's, or "one of my favorites" while a third group might be in the "it's OK, l like it" 70's range. But at least we could keep from playing the ones that we knew would cause one subset if not two to tune out.

One classic rock station I programmed also played currents and recurrents in the mix, which ran from 1967 to the present. At no point were there more than 4 or 5 true hit currents, and recurrents were just a handful. And to keep everyone happy, out of more than 30 years of rock songs, we could only find 450 playable ones. But the real story is that another station came after us with a library more than three times larger. After 6 months, we continued to have a 22 share, and they got a 1.8.
Click to expand...

One thing about me that is not known here, but is known on another social media platform that focuses on Satellite Television, I have a doctorate. So, when you present numbers and data, I'm on cloud 9. On that site, I go by a different username. This I can understand. But, does this justify 15 years of replaying the same 90s songs under the guise of "new rock." Like Pop and New Country, can we have inclusion of new songs to reinvigorate people into music? This doesn't have to mean keeping the same sound. Alternative finally broke loose in markets with more rhythmic sounds. Alternative was also stuck in the 90s and recently embraced a modern sound.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barry said:
So, if the big boss were to suddenly have misgivings about having an alternative station in New York, what format could be suggested for 92.3, that would fit in with the rest of the cluster?
Click to expand...
How about a throwback hip hop station? I know, I know, throwback hip hop hasn’t aged particularly well, but Entercom runs the most successful variants of it in Chicago and Seattle. It would also pair well with New as well.
 
Least said:
One thing about me that is not known here, but is known on another social media platform that focuses on Satellite Television, I have a doctorate. So, when you present numbers and data, I'm on cloud 9. On that site, I go by a different username. This I can understand. But, does this justify 15 years of replaying the same 90s songs under the guise of "new rock." Like Pop and New Country, can we have inclusion of new songs to reinvigorate people into music? This doesn't have to mean keeping the same sound. Alternative finally broke loose in markets with more rhythmic sounds. Alternative was also stuck in the 90s and recently embraced a modern sound.
Click to expand...

Generally, gold based stations have a kind of stationality that brands them as "best of" and not "new music". That is, listeners don't expect to hear new songs, even if, sonicly, they fit. In general, classic rock, classic hits, classic country and the like don't get positive results by including songs that are too new.

I was co-programmer of a group of Spanish language gold based stations in five of the top ten markets in the US. The date span of the music was 70's to 90's, and it did very very well, generally being the #2 station in Spanish in each market. At one point, after I left day to day programming, the owners tried adding new songs several times an hour. Depending on the market, the drop was on the order of 25% overall; the songs became actual hits but our listeners did not want a departure from the familiar faces they expected from us. The current airplay was stopped.

I do not see any indication of change in alternative station audiences with the changes in the music. Many alt stations, such as the benchmark LA stations KROQ and KYSR, are at lower levels in music hours than they have ever been. In 25-54 in midddays, a pure music datypart, KYSR is 20th and KROQ is 16th in the market; KYSR is 10th in the talk-based morning show and KROQ is 11th.
 
Last edited:
Least said:
Go back and read my first post in this thread. I openly stated that I wasn't specifically speaking to the New York market. I said that New York has stronger listenership in other formats. The statement was about Rock as a whole. It doesn't matter if it's New York, Boston, Philly, or anywhere else on the East Coast. When we got into the 2000s, the radio industry decided to stick to 90s acts. Look at the commonality between most Rock stations that failed. The ones like WYSP that went classic rock had their own issues. But, the ones that claimed to be modern rock were all heavily focused on mainstream 90s acts. Any new music mainly was from established 90s bands, like Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, The Offspring, etc. These are all bands I like, but how many times do you play My Hero and call it new rock? Bands from the 2000s that have survived the rock-pocalypse still don't get the same playtime as their older 90s counterparts. I'll hear Rape Me way more than Down With The Sickness on the modern rock stations. Forget about anything by more mainstream modern acts like Breaking Benjamin and Volbeat.

So, I'm the bad guy for identifying the common theme. Thanks for bringing up WRXP. If I remember, first, did the station fail or did Emmis have financial issues? Second, wasn't WRXP's playlist a lot like I previously mentioned? Terrestrial radio did exactly that to rock. Where Country and Pop get new music routinely played through, rock stations refuse to allow through new acts.

But, it's the listeners' fault for finding Jeremy to be overplayed for the last near 25 years. The same for Self-Esteem, Push, Machinehead, etc. Your answer is to tell me to go away for saying that your formula is broken. At what point do you realize that you are thinking with arragance and ignorance to what us as listeners are saying? You say we went away. We went away, because you are playing 20+ year old songs under the guise of new/modern rock. Go back to 1999, did modern rock stations play a heavy rotation of 70s acts with a small amount of (then) modern acts peppered in? No! We got Stairway added to the rotation here and there, but the acts of the time got the spotlight. How about the 80s and the hair bands of that era. Did you turn on a modern rock station in 1989 and hear an abundance of The Beatles and Janus Joplin? No! Again, they were in the rotation, but they didn't take the spotlight from the acts of the day. Yet, I listen to modern rock stations and hear Bulls on Parade. It's a song I like, but it isn't modern.

I would have greater respect for you if you just admit that you don't like modern rock and that's why you give it a chance. Instead, it's the bands, record company, listeners, the drummer's mother, etc fault. It's not the radio station that refuses to play new rock. It's not the fault of the station who plays songs sung by a guy who committed suicide almost 25 years ago, under the guise of "modern rock". That's not at all why listeners left. It's that they like more rhythmic music. Perhaps because the rhythmic stations play more actual new and modern songs from those formats that people lean that way. You don't need a damn record company to tell you what to play. You don't need to see a band on MTV to play their song. Last time I checked, stations have music directors for a purpose. How about having them listen to new acts and giving some airtime to these acts. But hey, it's easier to just say that there isn't payola. How many points did WAAF get off Godsmack's album "All Wound Up", which was remastered into its self-titled debut album? I actually own a copy of All Wound Up. Bought it at Newbury Comics in 1997.

I'm going to stay right here and share my perspectives. I'll listen to satellite and feel hurt to see FM slowly become the graveyard that AM now is, because the people in the buisness are too aragant to see their involvement in the problem. Instead it's easier to bash me with my pesky questions and observations. You don't have a defense to my points, just a runaround claim for me to be making a statement that I openly ensured to clarify yesterday.
Click to expand...

I agree. Modern Rock radio stopped being interesting sometime around 1996, when it kept clinging to grunge and burnt through one-it-wonders and novelty songs. Since 2008, 92.9 FM in Boston was largely a 90s-rock station whilst claiming to be an Alt station; as a result, I never listened because boring.

I love SiriusXM's AltNation which continually sounds fresh.

Missing from this discussion is an evaluation of the quality of songs. It's been hard to find really great, anthemic rock songs over the last twenty years. I'm thinking of material like Fun.'s "We Are Young". Somehow, as the US population grew, bands put out fewer remarkable, sustainable rock songs. A format needs great songs to play. If the songs aren't as good, fewer people will listen.
 
promixcuous said:
Missing from this discussion is an evaluation of the quality of songs.
Click to expand...

Dude, maybe you missed all my posts on this subject earlier in the thread. I agree with you 100%. The format needs great songs, not self indulgent guitar solos. Radio is a song medium, and it grows with great songs.
 
TheBigA said:
Dude, maybe you missed all my posts on this subject earlier in the thread. I agree with you 100%. The format needs great songs, not self indulgent guitar solos. Radio is a song medium, and it grows with great songs.
Click to expand...

You're correct, I've since back-read the posts and see you made that point. :)

And, it's something I wonder about. Is it because of the decline of music education--are budding songwriters underdeveloped because of a lack of training and development? Also, there have been a number of articles in the New York Times and elsewhere over the last several years about how record companies are scientifically homogenizing music--similar chord patterns, lack of compositional adventure, lack of dynamics. I'm fascinated by how easy today's pop stations are to listen to compared to the 70s/80s...fewer offensive songs...but certainly fewer memorable songs, too. Case point: Chainsmoker's "Closer". It was a massive hit, but has a completely forgettable melody. It's nice to listen to but it's a song no one truly loves.

Pop music too loud and all sounds the same: official
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ounds-the-same-official-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
 
Last edited:
promixcuous said:
Is it because of the decline of music education--are budding songwriters underdeveloped because of a lack of training and development?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame music education. There are more opportunities for real music education today than there were 50 years ago. I've talked at length about the lack of interest at record labels for rock bands. They just throw them out on the road, and expect the poor souls to fend for themselves. This is not the way bands did it in the 60s and 70s. Back then, labels took a serious interest in their artists. There are entire departments are labels called "Artists & Repertoire" or A&R. The purpose of that department is to seek out quality songs and get them recorded. That's what happens in other genres. Not so much in rock. Then you have the artist development department. Their job is to seek out media opportunities and other usages for an artists' talents. Maybe movie roles. Maybe TV appearances. Then you have marketing & promotion. Their goal is to get songs played on radio, placed on streaming services, and maybe even sold in stores. These departments exist in other genres. I deal with them all the time. But I never see them working with rock acts. So we wonder what happened to rock? The record labels simply gave up.

I highly recommend people to see the new documentary called "Echo In The Canyon." It is a documentary with Jakob Dylan and Tom Petty about the music community in Laurel Canyon near LA that led to the rise of the rock music of the late 60s and 70s. That's what's missing now. You need to have a real music community where artists writers and musicians live and work together to make great music. There is no core, no community, no center. That's what's needed, and that leadership comes from the music industry.

Watch & learn:

https://youtu.be/QRVFBQHBUls
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
And they moved to Times Square. So no, they're still on the air.

BTW I wouldn't be totally shocked if at some point EMF leaves ESB.
Click to expand...


Pacifica's 99.5 was evicted from Empire due to non-payment of rent.

If they couldn't pay the rent in one place, what makes you think they will continue to pay the rent where they moved?

Long term, they will not be able to pay the rent there, either.

They are walking dead, which was my point.


EMF does NOT have the same problem, so why move?


Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
 
TheBigA said:
..... Back then, labels took a serious interest in their artists. There are entire departments are labels called "Artists & Repertoire" or A & R. The purpose of that department is to seek out quality songs and get them recorded. That's what happens in other genres. Not so much in rock. ......

I highly recommend people to see the new documentary called "Echo In The Canyon." It is a documentary with Jakob Dylan and Tom Petty about the music community in Laurel Canyon near LA that led to the rise of the rock music of the late 60s and 70s. That's what's missing now. You need to have a real music community where artists writers and musicians live and work together to make great music. There is no core, no community, no center. That's what's needed, and that leadership comes from the music industry.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Tom Petty and A&R- "His leather jacket had chains that would jingle
They both met movie stars, partied and mingled
Their A&R man said, "I don't hear a single"
The future was wide open"
 
TheBigA said:
I wouldn't blame music education. There are more opportunities for real music education today than there were 50 years ago. I've talked at length about the lack of interest at record labels for rock bands. They just throw them out on the road, and expect the poor souls to fend for themselves. This is not the way bands did it in the 60s and 70s. Back then, labels took a serious interest in their artists. There are entire departments are labels called "Artists & Repertoire" or A&R. The purpose of that department is to seek out quality songs and get them recorded. That's what happens in other genres. Not so much in rock. Then you have the artist development department. Their job is to seek out media opportunities and other usages for an artists' talents. Maybe movie roles. Maybe TV appearances. Then you have marketing & promotion. Their goal is to get songs played on radio, placed on streaming services, and maybe even sold in stores. These departments exist in other genres. I deal with them all the time. But I never see them working with rock acts. So we wonder what happened to rock? The record labels simply gave up.

I highly recommend people to see the new documentary called "Echo In The Canyon." It is a documentary with Jakob Dylan and Tom Petty about the music community in Laurel Canyon near LA that led to the rise of the rock music of the late 60s and 70s. That's what's missing now. You need to have a real music community where artists writers and musicians live and work together to make great music. There is no core, no community, no center. That's what's needed, and that leadership comes from the music industry.

Watch & learn:

https://youtu.be/QRVFBQHBUls
Click to expand...

Great comment. That looks like a fantastic flick, thanks for posting!
 
I've only listened to WPLJ & WRQX over the Internet but from what I know of them, K-LOVE will NEVER fly on those frequencies
 
Yabadabado1 said:
Just like the Honey Badger, K-LOVE don't care.
Click to expand...

In a city as large as NYC and a metro area with a population so great, there will surely be enough listeners with open checkbooks to make the K-Love Jesus jukebox pay for itself many times over. This music, and the collection of codified folk tales and superstitions it's written about, may not be to your taste or mine, but you've got to admit the believers have done a damn good marketing job over the past couple of millennia and there will be plenty of folks who'll welcome K-Love and show their appreciation by making the extremely successful nonprofit that runs it even more flush with cash. Huh?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom