[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: burn-outs come faster in the 90's than previous decades
- Subject: Re: burn-outs come faster in the 90's than previous decades
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (H Glazer)
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
Tim Davisson wrote:
<<Back in even the 70's, a typical Top 40/CHR station, like the ones I
worked at, played about 80% currents, and 20% oldies. Recurrents weren't
really around in most markets til the middle 70's. In fact, as a music
director in Akron and later in Tampa, I had to talk the PD into creating
a category of "recent oldies", as we called them back then. He thought I
was crazy for that idea....but, it made sense. In Tampa we played one
"recent" per hour.>>
I recall recurrents on the old automated WRKO-FM in the mid-'60s. A
brief jingle -- "Arko-matic!" -- would play, then a song that had
recently dropped off the playlist. If the automation was working
correctly, that is.
I recall being so upset that "No Good to Cry" by the Wildweeds, a great
song and still a favorite of mine today, was being cut off right after
the intro by an automation glitch that I called the station and, yes,
got it fixed. Not bad for a 13-year-old, huh?
BTW, Dancin' Oldies, at least here in Connecticut, may have a longer run
than you might expect. WZMX appears to have an admirably deep playlist.
I hear something new just about every time I tune in. They go quite deep
into the Al Green catalog, for instance, and their disco playlist
includes not only the standards but relative obscurities like Cheryl
Lynn's "Got to be Real." I find this station to be a lot truer to the
concept of R&B oldies -- despite the presence of the Bee Gees and KC &
the Sunshine Band -- than the hybrid Boston 93.7.
I just hate the whole "Dancin'"/"Jammin'" tag. When this music was new,
we called it "soul" and "disco." The hip-hop crowd calls it "old
school." Why can't the format use these terms?