Broadcast Station Lame Music Formatting

[AJ1G]

For many years, I have been listening to an FM station over in RI which shall remain otherwise nameless in this posting.  They were, until recently, unique in that they played a good mix of swing, jazz, and blues, and some of the better classic rock, in contrast to the usual  "oldies" and "played to death classic rock"  They esepcially were good at featuring local blues talent like Roomful of Blues, Al Copley, Greg Piccolo and Eight to the Bar.  Although I listened to them frequently, their playlist was big enough that I never felt like I was hearing the same stuff over and over again.

In the last few weeks, thye have switched to a "variety" format, which is anything but.  They now seem to have a very short playlist, and are playing the same lame "classic rock" stuff over and over.  I have talked to them and emailed them my opinion and they say stay tuned, we are workng things out, and you will start hearing more and better stuff soon.  Its been very slow coming though. They said the format change was made because they weren't making any money on the old format.  How they will with their new one, which makes them sound like all the other local classic rock staions in the area, but worse with their short playlist, is beyond me...

The main question for this post, as I suspect some of you with broadcasting background might know, is what limits or other wise restricts what tracks of a particular artist a commercial station may play?  There is a lot of great stuff out there, but on commercial radio, all you ever hear is the same old played to death tracks by the same artists.  Is it a liscensing and copyright thing?  Do stations have to pay fees by the title?  For example, the station in question plays Layla and Bell Bottom Blues by Clapton to death, but never any of his other stuff.  What, other than a lack of imagination, would stop tthem from playing tracks from some of his recent albums like Riding with the King (B.B), or Me and Mr. (Robert )Johnson, as I have suggested to them?

[W4EWH]

The main question for this post, as I suspect some of you with broadcasting background might know, is what limits or other wise restricts what tracks of a particular artist a commercial station may play? 

The cardinal rule is "Don't offend".

The worst sin is to play something that will cause someone to tune out.

Bland is covering the land.

Trite is right.

Arcane is the golden vein.

I'm sorry.

73, Bill W1AC

[W2JTD]

Agreed, Chris.

I'm not in the business, but from a listener's standpoint, all the stations sound alike to me. The "Classic Rock" format seems to be the same 20 tunes in rotation and I've had it up to here with Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.

I truly miss the progressive FM of the '70s, which was exemplified in my market at the time by WMMR in Philadelphia. Lots of album cuts and no morning zoo.

I also would love to see some stations dedicated to the likes of Tony Bennett, Sinatra and swing music. Now that I'm growing buzzardly I am appreciating that stuff more. I have a cigar box full of CDs that I run in the car - Dean Martin, Tommy Dorsey, Johnny Mercer and Lounge Music.  Back in '73, f you had told me after a Uriah Heep concert that I would be listening to this stuff someday I would have laughed.

Just my $0.02.

btw, Maggie and I saw Bennett at the Kimmel Center in Phila last year, and he rocked!

[ka3zlr]

I've made the switch to todays country, although it's a bit more pop than country... BUT AT LEAST IT'S LISTENABLE...

The Seattle Sound is beaten to death...

[AF9J]

Uh Jack,

The Seattle Sound had been toast since the mid 90s.  Nowadays, most of today's music is either hip hop oriented (ugh!), "lost in the 70s" classic rock ala Eric Clapton (yawn!), or the 80s stuff like New Wave, or Rush's "Spirit of Radio."  Oh teah, and let's not forget awesome oldies songs like Leslie Gore's, "It's My Party."  In the workplace, I've been subjected to the above on a daily basis.  I swear somedays I want to scream, after putting up with WDRV's same old 70s rock blasting out of the work area our maintenance man has (which is next to where I work).

I agree with Bill. It's all about the least common denominator - songs people are comfortable, and familiar with.  They're a sure thing.  Most people only half-listen to music anyway.  It sort of colors a sound background (sort of like audio wallpaper).  The more familar a song is to them the more it sort of fades into the half noticed background.  Muzak is like dull pastel colors, but music you like is like colrs that are pleasing to the eye.  Most people in my experience are too cheap to go out and buy albums.  So, they never hear most of an album's songs.  That's a shame.  Because in my opinion, many of the songs you constantly hear on the radio, are the weakest songs on their respective albums.  But record company execs, decided they were the lowest common denominator (read easiest to spoon feed to the masses), so that's why they were chosen to receive airplay.  As it is, many if not most DJs don't get to choose their playlists anymore, since corporate radio station owners like Clear Channel, use focus groups to determine playlists.

Another thought - all too often, people like to stick with the familiar musically.  Here are some examples:

1.  A drummer in one of my bands was a total Led Head.  Everytime we'd talk about any musical goings on, he'd always try to fit in in the context of something similar he'd read about, happening to Led Zepplin, Deep Purple, etc.  The guy was only 4  years older than me, but was totally lost in the 70s musically.  His image of a rock band look, was like a 70s metal band.  When I asked him why he didn't try listening to some of the newer stuff, he told me that the newer stuff left him feeling cold, where as the older classic rock type stuff gave him a warm familiar feeling.

2.  Some years back, I read in "Guitar World" magazine, about the remastering of the Derek and the Dominos album "Layla"  (soapbox time - why is that album so popular?, most of the songs are based upon heroin-head Clapton [he was hooked on the stuff at the time] whining about how he wasn't married to George Harrison's wife [eventually he did marry, and DIVORCE her - what a joke!]).  In the article, Tom Dowd (who produced "Layla"), mentioned that when the master tape was remastered into digital format, some of the tracks (mentioned in the notes he wrote while producing the album), that were buried in the original mix, became much more clearly audible.  "Layla" was remixed with these lost tracks added in. The new mix was played for some Derek and the Dominos fanatics. Almost all of them whined that "it didn't sound like it should."  As a result, the remix was basically changed to just a clean-up of noise that was in the original mix.  Tom Down was kind of disappointed.

2. I have the remastered version of "Raw Power" by The Stooges.  I think it sounds great (if I want to hear some raw, proto-punk, I'll play "Raw Power").  One audio expert (read audiophool), states on his website, that the remaster is a travesty of the album.  "It doesn't have the classic  garagey sound of the original mix,"  in spite of the fact that Iggy Popp himself has stated that the original mix was NOT a very good reproduction of what the sound was in the studio, when "Raw Power" was recorded.

Just my 2 cents worth.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[W1DAN]

Hi:

I used to work in Radio as an engineer.

The format wars have been around since the late 70's. As listener's options grow (8 track, cassette, CD and now satellite and MP3) the money pie has been divided many times. As a station also gets sold, the new owners want to increase the profits taken out. So in order to try to get their return, they dumb down the format.

Yesterday I saw a friend's new car stereo...it has a USB connector on it. He plugs in his thumb drive in and gets all the music he wants (over 200 hours worth on a 2 gig drive)....the broadcast stations refuse to try to satisfy the listener and will never know what hit them!

Radio in Boston is indeed better than other markets, but about all I can listen to is NPR and college stations. I have always tried to wave the flag for the broadcaster, but I cannot anymore as the commercial spot breaks get longer (about 5-7 minutes each nowadays). And yes, no new music.

73,
Dan W1DAN

[KB2WIG]

  "  after putting up with WDRV's same old 70s rock blasting out of the work area our maintenance man has (which is next to where I work).  "


The answer(s)

GDO

or

LO

Enjoy The Sounds of Silence    .......  klc

[k4kyv]

As a station also gets sold, the new owners want to increase the profits taken out. So in order to try to get their return, they dumb down the format.

That seems par for the course with about everything these days, not just radio.  The "dumbing down" of America (or perhaps more appropriately, the world) has  long been a subject of ongoing debate, but it seems pretty obvious to me, if that's the only way radio, TV, newspapers, internet sites and consumer product manufacturers can make a profit.

That's also why about the only broadcast radio I listen to any more is NPR, plus local programming on our public radio and university stations.

The buzzword in both public and commercial radio these days is "HD".  But at best, the alleged improvement in audio quality over good analogue FM would be minuscule.  While the industry is fighting out the pro- vs anti- HD radio battle in a manner not unlike the current presidential nomination race, commercial stations are losing listeners to other media every day because the program content on 99% of the stations sucks.  Shit coming in over "crystal clear HD" is still shit.  Ever try to polish a turd?

Speaking of "HD Radio",  according to the HD Radio Alliance,  HD means
"Hybrid Digital", implying that it carries both analogue and digital
content, in-band on-channel (IBOC) .

Actually, "HD Radio" is a registered trademark,  nothing more than
iBiquity's brand name for its in-band on-channel  technology,  much in the
same manner that AAA is simply "Triple A", a self-contained trade name that
no longer stands for "American Automobile Association", and KFC is a
stand-alone trade name, no longer considered the initials for  "Kentucky
Fried Chicken".

Unfortunately, most of the tiny minority of the public who has even heard of "HD radio" has mistakenly formed a non-existent association between HD (high-definition) television and HD radio.  The term "high-definition" has no meaningful application to sound quality.  The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "definition" as "the quality of being clear and easy to see".  The proper term when referring to audio quality, as most of us know, is "fidelity".

Nevertheless, I frequently hear people speak of  HD radio as "high-def". I
suspect that iBiquity is subtly promoting this misconception and confusion
of terms, hoping that the non-technical public can be led to associate the
alleged improvements in sound clarity with HD radio with the obvious
improvements in picture quality they see with HD television.  In other words, they are trying to promote IBOC by letting it ride on the coattails of high definition TV.

[WQ9E]

I grew up listening to  WRNO (Rock of New Orleans) and WNOE FM in the early/mid 70's and NOE in particular did a lot of "deep album cuts".  Now I rarely have anything on in the car or truck but XM radio or a CD and it is often XM tuned to the  old time radio channel.  My new car on order is equipped with XM, a 40 gig hard drive, USB port, and dedicated Ipod integration so I seriously doubt that I will be making much use of free broadcast radio.  My listening tastes are definitely varied or eclectic, lots of variety big band through rock just leave out the rap please.  But I do like a lot of the 60's/70's R&B and just downloaded a lot of Curtis Mayfield material to my Ipod.

One of my worst radio experiences was last year when I was driving into work (25 mile commute from a rural area) and the weather was starting to go downhill.  I switched to the local AM station to check the weather and found out they had basically become almost all national feed with very little local and it seems big mouth Limbaugh was the feature of the hour.  When I attempted to switch back to FM I found out the radio in my Aurora had a little computer lockup and I could not switch stations, switch to CD, reduce the volume, or turn off the radio.  Even when I pressed the onstar button to hopefully mute the radio the noise continued.   I tried a quick engine stop/restart hoping that would reset but no happiness and I had to drive another 10 miles feeling my IQ slowly dropping until I got to work and pulled out the radio fuse.  If you have seen the Mel Brooks film, "High Anxiety" I felt like I was in a low budget remake with the radio that wouldn't turn off.

In summary, if an AM/FM radio were an option I am not sure I would order it.

Rodger WQ9E

[W4EWH]

I've made the switch to todays country, although it's a bit more pop than country... BUT AT LEAST IT'S LISTENABLE...

He gets off on Country music
'cause disco left him cold ...
He's got young friends into New Age
But he's just too friggin old ...

               The Old Hippie, The Bellamy Brothers

[W3LSN]

As a station also gets sold, the new owners want to increase the profits taken out. So in order to try to get their return, they dumb down the format.

I too was a broadcast engineer, and in broadcast radio for 15-years. Unfortunately the lament of fat cat owners trying to maximize profits is a bit too oversimplified.

The problem began in the early 80's when broadcast stations began to be purchased by investor types financed by venture capital. These new owners replaced traditional broadcasters and saw broadcast stations as licenses to print money. And for a time they were. The mode of operation was usually to operate the station for a few years and then flip it at a substantial profit.

As venture capital sought more stations to buy, lobby groups formed to press the FCC for more channel allotments.  In response, the FCC eventually added hundreds of new stations to the FM band in the 80s and early 90s, mostly on the fringes of larger markets.

Pressure groups lobbied for and received changes in ownership restrictions. The longstanding 7/7/7 ownership rule was changed to 12/12/12. Then the Communications Act was amended in 1996 to basically remove limits on total station ownership with a new market based local station limit.

With the ownership limits basically gone, billions of dollars of venture capital poured into the industry. The mega groups began to form, and large clusters of stations were created in many markets under common management.

At the height of the frenzy, the price of existing licenses inflated to outrageous levels with licenses sometimes changing hands on as much as 25 times cash flow. A former station owner I knew said he sold out because he received an offer he just could not refuse. The buyer set him up for life.  By the same token he called the new investor type owners suckers and said he'd hate to be in the radio business now. The reason is that the new operators are totally owned by Wall Street investment bankers and are slaves to the huge debt on their books.

Radio has become bland and mediocre because the bankers are basically now running the stations. Bankers don't like to take risks. The major station groups are simply operators running their groups for the banks. The radio groups can't allow their stations to do anything that would jeopardize their cash flow. The trickle down impacts both the programming and the operation. Expenses have to be kept low so that cash flow can be maximized. News departments are expensive to maintain, so local news was consolidated or eliminated. Local talk show talent takes time to nurture and requires salaries to be paid. The solution to that problem was cheap syndicated programing such as Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham. Promotions departments were scaled back or eliminated. Engineering was reduced or eliminated. Now it's not uncommon for one engineer to take care of an entire cluster whereas each station might have once had its own engineer. Some stations have no engineer at all and rely on a contractor.

It's not unheard of for the bankers have to have veto rights over capital improvements and format changes. Many good people have left the business because there is no possibility to be creative or their jobs were cut to maintain cashflow. Formulas and focus groups rule the day. Morning shows follow the same tired format of two flatulent, flea infested bozos trying to out gross the competition. The music becomes the same 25 tunes over and over. You will never see anything new or innovative because of the present situation. The people running the major radio groups are simply slaves and there is little they can do to change things. Pity them.

73, Jim
WA2AJM/3

[flintstone mop]

There may have been licensing issues for the music they were playing, OR when it came time to renew/pay their yearly fee, a bean counter said no, and now you're stuck with the SOS.
A station that plays such a wide variety of music that pleases your ears may not be popular with the majority of listeners. The radio station's goal is to make money not to let people hear something beyond what their little brain considers music. I'm sick of the played to death classic rock stations too. The satellite radio is doing a pretty good job of expanding the music horizon,(Bone Yard, Deep Tracks...on XM) even though there are terrestrial die-hards that dont' like XM or Sirius. They like to pick the audio quality to pieces. (My .01 cents worth)
We have a nice station in Pittsburgh Pa called "BOB radio" . I don't know the call letters, but they play this super wide variety of music you HAD on your FM. I call that entertainment. Coz you don't know where they are going to take your ears on the next tune.

OK enough from MOP radio...............Fred

[ka3zlr]

Welp, 

 There's ALWAYS Jim Quinn and the Politically Suave' Set....

 War Room Dot Com...LOL....

http://www.warroom.com/

He's so Emotional...

[AJ1G]

I guess everyone is in violent agrement with me about the lame formats.  But still have'nt heard an answer to the question - do commercial BC stations have to pay royaltys or other fees to the artists when the play a title? Do they pay by the title or by the artist, or by the album?  Is there some material out there that is out of copyright and that is why you hear it played to death?  Is newer material more costly, hence less played?

[Bill, KD0HG]

A station that plays such a wide variety of music that pleases your ears may not be popular with the majority of listeners. The radio station's goal is to make money not to let people hear something beyond what their little brain considers music.

Fred hit it here. "Narrowcasting" has recently been the  mantra of many programmers. They're doing whatever they can to prevent listeners from hitting the channel button on the radio by offending them. You and I might be sick of hearing Free Bird for the umteenth time, but are less likely to change the station because of it than if they put an unfamiliar piece of music on. This is what their scientific studies show. A station having 300 to 500 songs in frequent rotation  is a rare bird today, 100 songs is more commonplace. Go into a restaurant or bar that has a jukebox; people play the same 10 songs over and over.

[Bill, KD0HG]

I guess everyone is in violent agrement with me about the lame formats.  But still have'nt heard an answer to the question - do commercial BC stations have to pay royaltys or other fees to the artists when the play a title? Do they pay by the title or by the artist, or by the album?  Is there some material out there that is out of copyright and that is why you hear it played to death?  Is newer material more costly, hence less played?

BMI and ASCAP base their fees mostly on the market size of a radio station, they don't collect lists of played music and charge by any particular song. Non-Comm stations pay less in fees than commercial stations. AM or FM talk station that play music only incidentally (theme and bumper songs like Limbaugh playing My City was Gone) and TV pay less as well.

The amount that a major market FM music station might pay in music licensing fees is staggering, tens of thousand$ per year. Most of that is distributed, in turn, to the songwriters, not necessarily the performers according to some formula.

For example, whoever wrote Free Bird gets the music royalties, the rest of the Lynyrd Skynyrd band gets nothing, unless the band itself has a contract to share the royalties.

[ka3zlr]

...Aaaah Limbaugh.....I have but one thing to say to this Fellow..

http://lunkhead.net/wavs/nation.wav

[AF9J]

I guess everyone is in violent agrement with me about the lame formats.  But still have'nt heard an answer to the question - do commercial BC stations have to pay royaltys or other fees to the artists when the play a title? Do they pay by the title or by the artist, or by the album?  Is there some material out there that is out of copyright and that is why you hear it played to death?  Is newer material more costly, hence less played?

Like Bill said, they do.  18 or 19 years ago, an old boyfriend of mine (who also played in a couple of bands with me), used to be a manager at a Hardees.  I asked him why the Hardees he managed, played such lame muzak oriented pop covers on their sound system, instead of just playing the local radio station.  He told me that it was due to the costs they'd have to pay ASCAP and BMI in song royalties if they played original music, even if it was from the radio.  It was cheaper for Hardees to use a Muzak type service in this regard, that having to pay fees associated with replaying the original artists' material.  This was also the case for the drummer of a band I used to be in, in the eary 90s.  He owned a bar, that had a jukebox, and once a month (or every other month), the regional ASCAPand or BMI guy would come in, to make sure that all of the songs he had in his jukebox, were registered for royalties payments.  It wasn't much, but out drummer still had to pay them.

Shift to the present - a fair amount of you like satellite radio.  For me, if I don't have CDs playing, I have on internet radio.  Like satellite, I can put on Iceberg Radio (internet radio, which is based out of Canada), and listen to music streams that range from Sinatra, to Dvorak, to Hank Williams, to 70s rock, to Death Metal.   Over the past few years, Internet radio stations have been under  fire from the RIAA (Recording Industry Action Association - sort of the record companies' trained attack dog), due to the fact that internet radio stations pay little or no royalties for playing songs via the internet (these stations claim that the rules don't clearly state that paying song royalties, also includes songs  played over the internet).  The RIAA wants punative damages from the internet radio stations for playing music on the internet, and also wants a system of royalty payments enacted for internet radio stations.  

This has happened in part.  But as a result, stations that never used to have commercials, have now started including commercials in their streams, in order to defray costs to the RIAA.  Some internet radio stations have started to charge a subscription fee to listen to their music.  More than a few of the smaller 1 and 2 man internet radio stations have gone belly up, because they cannot afford to pay the RIAA's prices.  This is too bad, because a lot of these smaller stations played cool stuff by independent artists.  Nevertheless, unless a station can show that all of its music it plays, is not from record labels that belong to the RIAA, it can count upon having to deal with them.  This is the case for both radio and internet radio stations.  This adds up to a significant chunk of change after a while.  So, who gives you your best return on your song playing/royalty fee costs? - the  popular artists of course.

with anther 2 cents worth,
Ellen - AF9J

[ka3zlr]

This was a big issue with Steppenwolf some years ago, John Kay was wise to the fallout and protected his interests very early on, subsequently some members fell short on funds because of it...

Nothing new, it's business...

[Bill, KD0HG]

...Aaaah Limbaugh.....I have but one thing to say to this Fellow..
http://lunkhead.net/wavs/nation.wav
[/qu

...Aaaah Limbaugh.....I have but one thing to say to this Fellow..

http://lunkhead.net/wavs/nation.wav

The thing is, whether one agrees with Limbaugh's schtick or  not, I think that he single-handedly saved AM broadcast radio from extinction.

I *hate* AM talk radio; I don't like to listen to things that piss me off. I turn the radio on to get chilled out and cope with reality. But if it wasn't for personalities like Limbaugh or that Cunningham out of WLW, AM rado would be dark and dead.

[ka3zlr]

Well Bill to be quite honest it doesn't matter to me much anymore...commercial Terrestrial radio one way or the other..it could falter and I wouldn't miss it a bit..

Now AM on the Amateur bands is a Different situation...

[WBear2GCR]

The short sighted quick buck has effectively put the nail in the coffin of terrestrial broadcast radio.

As someone outlined earlier, the change of rules that put millions of $$ into the pockets of the banks and a few mega conglomerated companies (like Clear Channel) effectively eliminated local control and local broadcasters.

As is always the case where profit is confused with wealth, the profiteers have prospered in the short term at the expense of the many.

The only bright spot is that in about 10 years or so the value of broadcast stations will diminish to the point where they might drop in value sufficiently for some small local entrepreneurs to re-acquire stations and build real programming. The advent of actually good and interesting programming always has grabbed an audience.

The other aspect is that there is likely forethought and intention behind these developments as it surely looks like there is a desire for a limiting of independent media voices, and control thereof in this country. The thorn in the side is/was the apparently not fully appreciated or anticipated effect of the internet. There are those who seem to be pushing for rules and regulations that will similarly shut this "flaw" down too.

The example in point here is the early days of C band satellite.
It became apparent to many small independent stations that suddenly they could originate shows! Which many did. The networks acted fairly quickly to stop this in its tracks. How? They said, if you want to carry our network programming you may not originate programming for distribution via satellite. Over, done, fini.

So, it seems you can have a "free press" but "market forces" will be manipulated via rules that effectively prempt and preclude non-conforming sources from being available to more than a tiny percentage of the population.


                _-_-Wombat Batter Two Graphic Creamery Riddles

[ka3zlr]

I'd like to see that Bear.. "Build Real Programming Again"... I really would...there's alot of things that need to go belly up and get the control out of the hands that are ruining it...it'd be great Honest business again...Now that's a great concept...

[k4kyv]

Over the past few years, Internet radio stations have been under  fire from the RIAA (Recording Industry Action Association - sort of the record companies' trained attack dog), due to the fact that internet radio stations pay little or no royalties for playing songs via the internet (these stations claim that the rules don't clearly state that paying song royalties, also includes songs  played over the internet).  The RIAA wants punative damages from the internet radio stations for playing music on the internet, and also wants a system of royalty payments enacted for internet radio stations. 

This has happened in part.  But as a result, stations that never used to have commercials, have now started including commercials in their streams, in order to defray costs to the RIAA.  Some internet radio stations have started to charge a subscription fee to listen to their music.  More than a few of the smaller 1 and 2 man internet radio stations have gone belly up, because they cannot afford to pay the RIAA's prices.

You can hear some good streaming audio sources from outside the USA, beyond the jurisdiction of US copyright and royalty laws.

[kb3ouk]

I don't even listen to what's on the FM stations around here, cause it's crap that just don't sound good. most of the stations here play rock, pop, or someother new music, and I would rather listen to the older music(eventhough I am only 14 and it makes more sense, at least in my mine that I should seem to listen to the newer music more). Most of the seemingly better music is on AM, but that band is crowded with a bunch of talk stations. But if you want to hear 40s and 50s music, there's a lot of stations playing that. I was surprised at how many there were. Listen to Toronto's AM740 at night, they have some good old music on there.