Why did AC stop being soft?

[Music Lover]

Nothing's wrong with Neil Diamond. But he's of a different generation. His last record to get significant CHR play was "Heartlight". That was 32 years ago. It's been 25 years since he cracked the Top 10 of the Adult Contemporary charts. He simply isn't a factor for most 40-year-old women today.

I think it's interesting that artists like him are still able to top the albums charts in spite of no hit singles.

 

[Avid Listener]

What's wrong with Neil Diamond? People today like Neil Diamond.

Those shirts! (Anyone who knows anything about Neil Diamond knows what I'm talking about.)

Nothing's wrong with Neil Diamond. But he's of a different generation.

Every time I read this nonsense, I feel compelled to reply. Once recording technology reached the point where you couldn't tell how old a recording was by the crappy quality of old mono 78's, or recordings made on single-track tapes in the 50's, the age of a recording is irrelevant. If the song sounds good, it sounds good. It doesn't matter if it was recorded in the late 60's or last week, if it sounds good, it sounds good. Period.

 

[michael hagerty]

I think it's interesting that artists like him are still able to top the albums charts in spite of no hit singles.

It's been six years since he did. Interestingly, that was his only album to go to #1 and that probably says more about the state of the industry and how little it takes to make #1 in a given week than anything else.

 

[michael hagerty]

Every time I read this nonsense, I feel compelled to reply. Once recording technology reached the point where you couldn't tell how old a recording was by the crappy quality of old mono 78's, or recordings made on single-track tapes in the 50's, the age of a recording is irrelevant. If the song sounds good, it sounds good. It doesn't matter if it was recorded in the late 60's or last week, if it sounds good, it sounds good. Period.

That does not make the artist a part of a different generation's past. When today's 40-year-old woman was in high school and college and listening to CHR, Neil Diamond wasn't getting played.

 

[Music Lover]

Every time I read this nonsense, I feel compelled to reply. Once recording technology reached the point where you couldn't tell how old a recording was by the crappy quality of old mono 78's, or recordings made on single-track tapes in the 50's, the age of a recording is irrelevant. If the song sounds good, it sounds good. It doesn't matter if it was recorded in the late 60's or last week, if it sounds good, it sounds good. Period.

Quite agree. Timeless music is music that transcends the ages. Music that generation after generation can enjoy. Decades ago, performers like Michael Jackson and the Beatles transformed the face of music when they ruled the airwaves, showcasing their own unique display of talent and amassing a loyal base of fans who continued on their legacies by introducing their children and grandchildren to their classic tracks. But one has to wonder, is the music of today the type of music that we can see being passed down through generations? Some people judge timeless music by the amount of sales and popularity that an artist has. Many artists like Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Justin Beiber, and Taylor Swift rule the charts and sales at this point in music, but does it really mean that their music will stand the test of time?

 

[Music Lover]

I'd like to make a correction here.

Maybe they did sound like this in the 80s. I don't think the softest music came back even when they had to become the soft AC in 1994 with the demise of B-100. But 93 Mix was soft (except for "Footloose" and a couple of other songs) and Joy 100 even softer, even playing Sinatra and Perry Como. WMAG ended up playing some of the harder stuff that distinguished AC from soft AC. I even remember hearing "My Sharona" in the early 90s. 93 Mix had gone oldies and Joy 100, as B-100, had more of an AC sound. Then B-100 went rock.

Here's when my family tuned in to the stations:

Sometime in the 1980s was when we tuned into Joy 100.

Sometime in the 1990s was when we tuned into 99.5 WMAG. They were calling themselves "Magic" at that time.

Sometime in the 1990s was when we tuned into 93.1 Mix. They had already become Oldies 93 at that time.

 

[michael hagerty]

Quite agree. Timeless music is music that transcends the ages. Music that generation after generation can enjoy. Decades ago, performers like Michael Jackson and the Beatles transformed the face of music when they ruled the airwaves, showcasing their own unique display of talent and amassing a loyal base of fans who continued on their legacies by introducing their children and grandchildren to their classic tracks. But one has to wonder, is the music of today the type of music that we can see being passed down through generations? Some people judge timeless music by the amount of sales and popularity that an artist has. Many artists like Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Justin Beiber, and Taylor Swift rule the charts and sales at this point in music, but does it really mean that their music will stand the test of time?

People asked the same question about Michael Jackson and the Beatles when they were ruling the airwaves. They suggested that no, they wouldn't. They were wrong.

It's a generational thing. People, en masse, don't go back beyond a certain point of personal reference. Frank Sinatra wasn't the singer Bing Crosby was, they said. And Elvis was no Frank. And The Beatles were no Elvis. Elton John was no Beatles. Michael Jackson was no Elvis. And Mariah Carey wasn't the man any of them were, they said. But they all did just fine. As will Beyonce (the jury's out on Nicki, Beiber is Bobby Sherman with a police record and Taylor Swift is a reform school Marie Osmond).

As for technology and sound, that logic should have made Peggy Lee, Jim Nabors and Tony Bennett just as listenable to teenagers in 1970 as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and Creedence Clearwater Revival were. But they weren't.

 

[Music Lover]

From my listening experience, I'm of the opinion that the digital broadcasters have a better understanding of how these stations should be than Clear Channel and their ilk do. They get the point that you don't alienate those who made you popular.

 

[michael hagerty]

From my listening experience, I'm of the opinion that the digital broadcasters have a better understanding of how these stations should be than Clear Channel and their ilk do. They get the point that you don't alienate your original audience.

Let's go with that for a moment. How far do you take that? Till your last original audience member dies? If not, then what? The station goes down with the ship, so to speak? By this logic, KOST should still be playing elevator music and adult contemporary would be.....ironically...what it's becoming again....all but the most abrasive pop hits presented in a contemporary fashion.

It's easier for digital broadcasters, as you call them. They don't have to hit the demographic targets insisted upon by the ad agencies because there aren't millions of dollars and dozens of jobs at stake as there are at major market terrestrial radio stations.

 

[Music Lover]

Let's go with that for a moment. How far do you take that? Till your last original audience member dies? If not, then what? The station goes down with the ship, so to speak?

It's easier for digital broadcasters, as you call them. They don't have to hit the demographic targets insisted upon by the ad agencies because there aren't millions of dollars and dozens of jobs at stake as there are at major market terrestrial radio stations.

What Clear Channel and their ilk did when they switched many of their stations from Soft AC to Hot AC was alienate anyone, no matter what age they were, who preferred soft music.

 

[Avid Listener]

That does not make the artist a part of a different generation's past. When today's 40-year-old woman was in high school and college and listening to CHR, Neil Diamond wasn't getting played.

Again, that's the misconception I strive to correct. When today's 40-something woman was in high school and college, there were many, many radio stations playing "vintage" music, including Neil Diamond. The only stations that weren't playing Neil Diamond at that time were the ones that only played the current hits. The idea that younger people only listen to what is new and current was a valid paradigm in the 50's and 60's, but those days are long over.

As for technology and sound, that logic should have made Peggy Lee, Jim Nabors and Tony Bennett just as listenable to teenagers in 1970 as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and Creedence Clearwater Revival were. But they weren't.

You totally missed that point. If you listen to the old blues masters' recordings that inspired Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, and the other blues revival artists, you can hear how primitive they were. Likewise, if you listen to a Rudy Vallee recording from the 20's, you'll hear that technically it sounds like crap. However, if you listen to a recording of Frank Sinatra made in the 1960's, and one by Michael Buble in the 00's, you can compare them based only on the sound of the singers' voices. If you listen to a Beatles recording from the 60's and an Oasis recording from the 00's, you can compare them based on the sound of the bands, not the technical flaws in the 1960's recording.

 

[Music Lover]

Again, that's the misconception I strive to correct. When today's 40-something woman was in high school and college, there were many, many radio stations playing "vintage" music, including Neil Diamond. The only stations that weren't playing Neil Diamond at that time were the ones that only played the current hits. The idea that younger people only listen to what is new and current was a valid paradigm in the 50's and 60's, but those days are long over.

Quite right about both!

 

[Music Lover]

As many of you who listen to "old school" soft adult contemporary may remember, the format was primarily older-based soft rock ballads, with a few currents thrown in per hour to keep the format fresh.

That's the way I remember these stations doing as well. They would mix in something current, yet soft, like Backstreet Boys ballads, for instance. As you said, it kept it fresh, yet remained faithful to the format.

This is another station that I came across that I would consider a hybrid: http://www.kliteonline.com/

They play hits by today's artists like Taylor Swift, Train, Michael Buble and Daughtry. They play artists you don't hear as much anymore like Celine Dion, Vanessa Williams, Phil Collins and Rod Stewart. From the 80s, they play hits by artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. The 70s selections include groups like Chicago, Fleetwood Mac, America and Bread; the soul sound of Earth, Wind & Fire, Marvin Gaye, Roberta Flack, The Spinners and Al Green; the Southern California soft-rock movement and singer-songwriters, like James Taylor, Carole King, The Eagles and Jackson Browne. From the 60s, you'll hear artists such as The Righteous Brothers, Temptations, Van Morrison, Aretha Franklin and, of course, The Beatles.

Maybe terrestrial AC could do something like that to bridge the gap.

 

[michael hagerty]

Again, that's the misconception I strive to correct. When today's 40-something woman was in high school and college, there were many, many radio stations playing "vintage" music, including Neil Diamond. The only stations that weren't playing Neil Diamond at that time were the ones that only played the current hits. The idea that younger people only listen to what is new and current was a valid paradigm in the 50's and 60's, but those days are long over.

An examination of what formats get how much listening from 12-24 year old females might surprise you. There were not in 1986-1998, the years our current 40-year-old female was 12-24, significant shares in Oldies/Classic Hits nor in Adult Contemporary (the only two formats playing Neil Diamond in those years). AC actually did and does better with teen and adult females when the playlists are most similar to CHR, as in before the "soft" era and now.

While she is certainly aware of Neil, and could probably sing a few of the songs, he's "Mom's music", and doesn't inform the sensibility she wants from a contemporary radio station designed for her tastes.

Again, we're talking about the majority of today's 40-year-old women who would listen to an adult contemporary station. There are some who don't fit that, but not enough at present to build a dominant 25-54 AC station around.

You totally missed that point. If you listen to the old blues masters' recordings that inspired Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, and the other blues revival artists, you can hear how primitive they were. Likewise, if you listen to a Rudy Vallee recording from the 20's, you'll hear that technically it sounds like crap. However, if you listen to a recording of Frank Sinatra made in the 1960's, and one by Michael Buble in the 00's, you can compare them based only on the sound of the singers' voices. If you listen to a Beatles recording from the 60's and an Oasis recording from the 00's, you can compare them based on the sound of the bands, not the technical flaws in the 1960's recording.

Let's go back and look at that point:

(screen goes all wavy, harp music plays)


Quote Originally Posted by michael hagerty View Post

Nothing's wrong with Neil Diamond. But he's of a different generation.

Avid Listener: Every time I read this nonsense, I feel compelled to reply. Once recording technology reached the point where you couldn't tell how old a recording was by the crappy quality of old mono 78's, or recordings made on single-track tapes in the 50's, the age of a recording is irrelevant. If the song sounds good, it sounds good. It doesn't matter if it was recorded in the late 60's or last week, if it sounds good, it sounds good. Period.

I think you missed my point. Neil's being of a different generation has nothing to do with technology or the sound of the recording. It's simply about his music's place in our typical 40-year-old female's life, which I illustrated by saying (perhaps not as well as I should have) that Peggy Lee, Jim Nabors and Tony Bennett were making albums in 1970 of the same technical quality as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and Creedence. But boomers didn't buy them in large numbers. They weren't our artists, they were our parents' artists...just as Neil Diamond wasn't one of today's 40-year-old female's artists in the mid 80s-late 90s...but is one of her mom's. Who, statistically, is pushing 70.

 

[Avid Listener]

While she is certainly aware of Neil, and could probably sing a few of the songs, he's "Mom's music", and doesn't inform the sensibility she wants from a contemporary radio station designed for her tastes.

It "doesn't inform the sensibility she wants"?

OK, if you want to resort to jargon from Psychobabble 101, I have to withdraw.

 

[michael hagerty]

It "doesn't inform the sensibility she wants"?

OK, if you want to resort to jargon from Psychobabble 101, I have to withdraw.

You mean, rather than simply discuss the facts?

 

[DavidEduardo]

What part of "rural, Southern, and conservative with the dominant formats being country and Christian" do you not understand?

What the hell does Miami, San Diego, and Phoenix have to do with "rural, Southern, and conservative"?

The reason I inquired about the "market" the OP lived in was to confirm my suspicion that they do not live in any rated market and, in fact, live in a market with a very limited number of local choices, thus the listening to Danville and Roanoke stations.

In unrated markets with fewer stations, the first music format choices will be the most advertiser friendly ones: country, contemporary AC, CHR, Urban (where there is a significant Black population) Regional Mexican (where there is an audience), Contemporary Christian (more so in the Bible Belt), Classic Hits and Classic Rock, more or less in that order.

Those markets don't have enough stations and enough revenue for a soft AC to succeed. It is a niche format that only works where all the other stations are so fragmented that the niche appears sizable by comparison.

However, it has only been in the last 3 or 4 years that the opening for soft AC has developed, caused by the move of Hot AC's to borderline CHR and of heritage AC's to borderline Hot AC. Such conditions don't exist in smaller markets, as few have a full array of AC, Hot AC, CHR and Classic Hits to cover the pop / contemporary female leaning audience segment.

So mentioning that a trend is developing, as witnessed in several larger markets, is truly relevant. It shows that such a format is viable, but only in rather significant markets as evidence by the fact that the first 4 are all in Top 20 markets.

There is, of course, no need for the snarky "what part of xxxx do you not understand". Demeaning a person with a contrary point of view only indicates that you have no real facts yourself. It's a poor debate technique and its rude.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Again, that's the misconception I strive to correct. When today's 40-something woman was in high school and college, there were many, many radio stations playing "vintage" music, including Neil Diamond. The only stations that weren't playing Neil Diamond at that time were the ones that only played the current hits. The idea that younger people only listen to what is new and current was a valid paradigm in the 50's and 60's, but those days are long over.

(Underlining mine)

I looked at a variety of markets in 1991... using Arbitron's Radio USA for spring of that year ( http://www.americanradiohistory.com...orical-Publications/Radio-USA-1991-Spring.pdf )

There is a column in the section for each market for Teens (12 to 17).

If you look at the Duncan's American Radio for the same survey, you can identify the formats for each call letter set (http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Duncan-American-Radio/Duncan-1991-Spring.pdf )

I took a reasonable market, Atlanta, and looked at teen listening.

You will find that teens did not use to any but a residual amount* any stations that played Neil Diamond.

The CHR had a 31 share of teens.
The Urban had a 22 share
The AOR had a 14 share.

That's about 70 shares for the principal stations that did not play Mr. Diamond or his like.

Teens neither liked nor listened to that kind of music in any significant fashion.

* Residual listening to stations that generally do not fit the demo of the listener are mostly attributable to "forced listening" such as kids having to hear Mom's station in the car or kitchen.

 

[michael hagerty]

Let's shift to Los Angeles, since most people on the board are familiar with the players. When our 40-year-old female of today was 17:

KIIS-FM (CHR) had a 22.7 share in teens.
KKBT-FM (Urban) had a 13.6 share in teens.
KPWR-FM (Rhythmic CHR) had a 12.6 share in teens.

That's a 48.9 share.

KOST-FM (Soft AC) had a 4.0 in teens.
KRTH-FM (Oldies) had a 3.6 in teens.
KBIG-FM (AC) had a 0.8 in teens.
KMPC-AM (Nostalgia, but playing some of Neil Diamond's early ballads) had no teens whatsoever.

That's an 8.4.

 

[Avid Listener]

You mean, rather than simply discuss the facts?

When you throw in psychobabble like "doesn't inform the sensibility she wants", there is no room for facts.

The reason I inquired about the "market" the OP lived in was to confirm my suspicion that they do not live in any rated market and, in fact, live in a market with a very limited number of local choices, thus the listening to Danville and Roanoke stations.

Then why beat around the bush instead of simply asking, like a regular person?

I looked at a variety of markets in 1991... using Arbitron's Radio USA for spring of that year

I keep forgetting. You treat the ratings as if they were Holy Scripture.

You also ignore the fact that those ratings in those days were based on diaries, and they don't include how often teenagers were stuck in a car with the radio station tuned to their parents' favorite station, not theirs. But such reality conflicts with your worship of the all sacred ratings, so give such a conflict, the True Believer accepts the Divine Ratings over all heresy to the contrary.