My blood runs sorta cold
It’s a bit disconcerting to me that they have changed “classic rock” so now it means mostly 70s and some 80s stuff, as for me, growing up, “classic rock” was like Bill Haley and the Comets and the various 50s and early 60s vocal groups. (I wonder, are they now considered Baroque Rock? or maybe Renaissance Rock? if what came after them is now “Classic” period rock?) And it was really disconcerting a couple weeks ago, when I went to give blood, and they had a “classic rock” program blaring, and “Centerfold” came on. You know you’re starting to get old when a song you hated on its first go-round is now called “classic rock.” (And nothing against fans of the J. Geils Band, it was just that when that song was popular — fall 1981 into spring 1982, maybe? — in the town where I lived, you Could. Not. Get. Away. From. It. It was as if it was being played every 15 minutes. Which, as I remember, was the standard joke about Top 40: that there was a tiny subset of songs played again and again and again, and yet, all the ‘cool kids’ seemed to love it.)
“Centerfold” was in fact released in the last week of October 1981, and it spent six weeks at #1 in Billboard, starting February 6, 1982.
By that time, “Top 40,” which actually had begun as a format which played the top 40 songs, was playing more like 20 or 25. At least some of this was due to sheer song length, though “Centerfold” ran 3:35, about average for early-Eighties singles.
Still, this doesn’t explain “classic rock,” which is a marketing term, not an evaluation of historical importance. All the stuff I listened to as a wax tadpole — the rockabilly and the doo-wop and the surf tunes and the girl groups and the British Invasion acts who weren’t the Beatles — all that is now beneath the radar of the radio industry, because its fans are mostly around my age and therefore of no interest to advertisers. I accept this with a shrug, mostly because if it was a record I liked back then, I probably already have it and therefore don’t have to wait for an interval between auto-dealer ads to hear it.
fillyjonk »
22 November 2009 · 6:22 pm
I like a lot of that stuff, too. But I think once a person passes out of that 18-34 “magic” demographic, what they like matters a lot less. (Not that what I liked ever mattered much any way, I tend to have unusual tastes).
It seems odd to me because 18-34s, you would think, would have less disposable income than older folks. Then again, maybe they’re more willing to dispose of what they do have than we in our 40s and beyond are…
CGHill »
22 November 2009 · 7:00 pm
Or maybe we’re more set in our ways and less amenable to persuasion of that sort.
Jeffro »
22 November 2009 · 7:24 pm
One of the local FM stations around here changed their format from “classic rock” to more modern hard rock, which had far more appeal to the younger set. So, even “classic rock” will eventually go away. I’ll miss it, but there are only so many times one can listen to Stairway to Heaven, Money, or other overplayed standards.
And what is included in classic rock seems to be a pretty specific subset of the Top 40 stuff from years ago. Certainly disco is right out, anything by Madonna and Prince, no Neil Diamond or Barry Manilow – not that I’d care to hear it anyhow!
CGHill »
22 November 2009 · 7:29 pm
I used to use the following equation:
(Top 40) – (Adult Contemporary) = (Classic Rock)
until I found that it didn’t allow for Rod Stewart.
McGehee »
22 November 2009 · 7:33 pm
It’s reached the point where, when I listen to local radio, the auto-dealer ads are often more entertaining than the music.
fillyjonk »
22 November 2009 · 7:36 pm
Actually, I find a lot of the designations kind of baffling. “Adult Contemporary”? “Album-Oriented Rock”? “Urban Contemporary”?
Now, “Hair Metal,” that I get. And “Old-Skool Hip Hop.” But some of the others don’t really tell me what they are.
The digital-music package that comes with my cable does have a channel that plays 50s rock and doo-wop. They call it “Malt Shop Oldies.” (I’m not sure to respond to that with “Ugh” or “Sigh.”)
CGHill »
22 November 2009 · 8:18 pm
“Urban” is radio’s preferred synonym for “black.”
AOR is what displaced so-called the “progressive” radio of the late Sixties-early Seventies; they still played “deep” (translation: “non-single”) cuts, but the formatting was tighter and the playlist decidedly limited. You don’t see much AOR anymore. In its place are “Active Rock” (more mainstream rock acts), “Modern Rock” (more indies), and “triple A” (“Adult Album Alternative,” which has less edge and a wider range.
Top 40 itself is now Contemporary Hit Radio, which is often divided into two flavors: CHR/Pop and CHR/Rhythmic. The latter is, um, more urban.
The least-formatted format, perhaps, is whatever the hell they do at Jack FM, “playing what we want.”
Donna B. »
22 November 2009 · 10:08 pm
Why must I, my age, and my tastes be classified?? I think I made the right decision to sell my speakers.
Brett »
22 November 2009 · 10:32 pm
I use the iPod-plugged-into-a-cassette-player-adapter format, except for certain hours of the weekend when Hardluck Jim plays the blues. Because OKC radio has more crap than a Panhandle poultry farm.
Jason »
22 November 2009 · 11:18 pm
Good one, Brett.
Also, the Spy is supposedly returning in about 40 minutes (midnight, Nov. 23), so OKC radio might be a little less crappy tomorrow.
Lynn »
23 November 2009 · 7:55 am
As I said over there, For me, rock and pop music falls into three eras – the 70s, before the 70s and dull new stuff I don’t care about – and it is disturbing that music in the latter category is now “classic” or “oldies”.
But you’re right; marketers like the word “classic” not actual classics.
Lisa Paul »
23 November 2009 · 8:20 am
Thank heavens in San Francisco there are areas where the sixties never ended. On local station KFOG, the playlist is the same as when the Jefferson Airplane (before it was a Starship), the Grateful Dead and Janis Joplin were all hanging around the Haight.
Lisa Paul »
23 November 2009 · 8:22 am
And Fillyjonk, having been in the nefarious business of advertising, I can tell you that the younger set does indeed have more disposable income. Once you get a mortgage, kids headed to college and other responsibilities, you are less likely to spend frivolously, impulsively and in response to advertising. Which “disposable” is code for.