Page 49 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3947484950 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 498

Thread: PLJ SOLD

  1. #481
    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?

  2. #482
    Moderator/Co-Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    38,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Least View Post

    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.
    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.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, Billboard, Cash Box, R&R, Record World, Music & Media, Audio, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, Popular Electronics, Studio Sound, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post


    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.
    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 by Least; 06-04-2019 at 05:36 PM.

  4. #484
    Moderator/Co-Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    38,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Least View Post
    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.
    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 by DavidEduardo; 06-04-2019 at 08:35 PM.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, Billboard, Cash Box, R&R, Record World, Music & Media, Audio, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, Popular Electronics, Studio Sound, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  5. #485
    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).

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post


    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.
    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 DavidEduardo; 06-04-2019 at 08:35 PM.

  7. #487

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Strongsville, Ohio
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    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?
    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.

  8. #488
    Moderator/Co-Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    38,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Least View Post
    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.
    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 by DavidEduardo; 06-04-2019 at 08:48 PM.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, Billboard, Cash Box, R&R, Record World, Music & Media, Audio, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, Popular Electronics, Studio Sound, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Least View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by promixcuous View Post
    Missing from this discussion is an evaluation of the quality of songs.
    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.

Page 49 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3947484950 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

     
Useful Contacts
Community


123