What is going on with the radio playlists? Even the “Oldies” station is playing things from the late 70’s, and early 80’s. Why on Earth, would it be preferable to play Elton John’s version of “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” instead of the Beatles’? Admittedly, I don’t make much of an effort to stay current. Once in a while I listen to the “alternative” local station. Occasionally I would listen to the university radio station when I was in school, but there isn’t a local school radio music station where I live now. NPR is usually a safe bet, as I like news coverage, but when I want music, there aren’t a whole lot of acceptable choices available.
Normally I prefer oldies or classic rock, even though some of the “classic rock” songs now include things Aerosmith did on “Get A Grip”. There also seems to be a move towards playing kitschy garbage. I hope that this is being done ironically, but I don’t have that much confidence in the folks deciding what gets air time. Since when should “Escape” or things by Captain & Tennille be in regular rotation? I understand the move from “oldies” being 50’s and 60’s, to being the 60’s and 70’s, but there is still enough good music out there, that bad stuff shouldn’t even be needed for filler.
I understand I can change the station, etc. but what does this say for the future of our culture? Is it just me?
Some oldies stations updated their playlist from songs of the 50s and 60s to songs of the 60s, 70s, and 80s in recent years. Why? Because the people who were teenagers in the 50s are growing old and aren’t good demographics (If you were 17 in 1957, you’re going to turn 67 this year). Advertisers aren’t interested in people that old.
The stations do occasionally play the older songs – succeeding generations do like some of them – but the focus is on newer oldies. (The “classic rock” groups have a dispensation – the Beatles, Stones, Who, etc., still attract younger fans).
Yes, and pop music has a maximum shelf life of one generation. No matter how many people might catch on to it in succeeding generations, it is almost never remarketed, because there’s only so much $ the industry can make off defunct groups or deceased artists. Their bread and butter depends on promoting new acts.
Sic transit gloria mundi (So pass earthly glories.) When I worked in radio in the 1970s, there were still a number of stations that played big band music – Glen Miller, Duke Ellington, the Dorseys, etc. “Oldies” stations were firmly pre-Beatles.
Basically the timeline has always been nothing older than 25-35 years old at the oldest. That any radio stations are playing anything from the 60s and early 70s is a testament to the still-enormous number of Baby Boomers who simply won’t listen to anything new.
What’s especially egregious is that playlists never, ever, purge songs that sucked then, and haven’t improved with age. I suspect that playlists are purchased or royalties paid en masse on blocks of songs, or something similar and so all of them are played, including the chaff.
What pisses me off is classic rock stations that play the same songs every day. I understand why current top 40 stations do it, but classic stations have decades of songs to choose from- I shouldn’t hear a particular more than once a week, yet I hear the same 50 songs every day. Non-satellite radio is the dregs, and I hope it goes away.
I understand the shift from “Oldies” being defined as 50’s-60’s, to 60’s-70’s; the aging of the population, and other demagraphic factors. My main complaint is that the change in parameters shouldn’t prevent a compilation of what could be considered by a reasonable person to be “good” music. Taste is subjective, no doubt, but I would expect most people listening to an “Oldies” station to prefer the Beatles or the Beach Boys to Captain and Tennille or Rupert Holmes. It’s hard to argue against the former legitimately having an impact on music, and having staying power, while the latter isn’t much more than a punch line. It could be my local station, but I’m sure I’ve heard similar offenses on other stations. In general, the kitschy soft rock has been getting more airplay everywhere. I don’t think most people like those songs unironically (or would argue them being anything more than a guilty pleasure). So kind of what Common Tater said. This music has never been good. Why is it getting so much air time now?
I’ve never considered myself a music snob. There’s plenty of music that I like that is either out of the mainstream, or that I could understand if it isn’t appreciated by others. However, I think I have a grasp on what can be considered mainstream, and what deserves to be mainstream. Anything can usually boil down to being about the money, but surely there is some decent music out there that isn’t anymore expensive than “Love will keep us together”. The homogenization of playlists to include so many bad songs can’t be good for anybody in the long run.
KHITS in St Louis has been going with No Repeat Weeks every week since Labor Day. Although according to their log they have repeated several songs in the last 2 days. It has been a refreshing change from the 150 song classic rock playlist of tired songs that they had been playing.