RadioDiscussions.com

 
RadioDiscussions.com Discussion Boards
Login May 19, 2013, 10:55:37 AM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Contact Us Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Best at stringing songs together  (Read 776 times)
RockJazz
Guest
Best at stringing songs together
« on: August 24, 2009, 12:49:39 AM »

I imagine some DJs give more thought to stringing songs together and do it better than others though I haven't really focused on comparative DJ talent or sensibilities with that to voice a well-considered opinion and don't know the industry basics for this.

Within rock- classic or alternative- who would you say is or was  the most thoughtful or best in this market?

How much is really driven by programming execs these days? I assume  the songs are probably almost entirely but how tight is the formula for the sequencing? Fast or slow, old or new, appeals to men more or women?
Logged
mightymoose
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2009, 01:50:00 AM »

Compared to the time and trouble we would go through 20 or 30 years ago to maintain element to element flow no one is worth a crap these days.  Why do you think radio cume drops every year over the last 2 decades??
Logged

Radio kissed me goodbye...now it can kiss my ass
Bongwater
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 4713

The Shadow Lord Of NW Radio.......


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2009, 05:02:24 AM »

it's really hard to maintain flow when you don't have any control over anything else in your program. You just have to resign yourself and sound like the guy/gal before you, who sounded like the guy/gal before them, who sounded like the guy/gal before.....

Guess that's the definition of radio success these days.

Guess the rest of us will just keep tuning into non-terrestrial radio sources.....slowly......but assuredly. Wake us when it's over. And please don't mind when you've discovered nobody is listening at all except just the carefully selected people with PPMs. Which by the fluctuation of some of these numbers, people just stick the damn things in a room and just let it record whatever comes up. No agendas, no taste, just whatever publicly available high numbers come up and ditto it. A REAL radio listener will pick and choose, hourly.....if not by minute.....

Don't tell me THAT can't happen.......or has NEVER happened. How did KGY-AM pop up in the first 6+ books? And how many people actually get these things?

.
Logged

Social Media: For those who like to be social in private.
LITTLEBOYBLUE
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1793


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2009, 02:03:17 PM »

That, believe it or not, was kind of final straw for me.  It was still KIND OF fun when you were playing music off CD as you could decide where segues would start, how/where to drop imaging during a segue, etc so it flowed.  Also some decision-making about how to use a set of music to accommodate ALL the stuff you wanted (contesting, imaging, hits in key clock positions, etc.). 

When it went to digital hands-off .. it was coffin nail #1.  When you couldn't even tough digital segue control (e.g. Prophet got locked down) it was pretty clear there was no such thing as "talent" in the "air talent".  Pretty much a playground where I can't see ANY fun any more. 

And all that assumes that ANY freedom about what you could say or do had already been hosed out through aircheck sessions, etc. LONG before the flow control was taken away.

But it WAS reassuring to know that some blow-cheese consultant nine or twelve states away cared a lot more about execution on every station during every air shift than any of us EVER could......
Logged
TheBigA
rimember

Online Online

Posts: 10725


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2009, 12:19:54 AM »

Compared to the time and trouble we would go through 20 or 30 years ago to maintain element to element flow no one is worth a crap these days.  Why do you think radio cume drops every year over the last 2 decades??

I hate to break it to you, but creative segues didn't build cume, and the lack of creative segues doesn't hurt it.  And I trained at the feet of Thom O'hair.  If he was alive, he'd tell you that he didn't do them to build cume.  Traditional radio goals were absolutely not his motivation.

Progressive rock radio was important to a small dedicated group of music lovers for a short period of time.  The grand experiment was killed by Album Oriented Rock, which valued variety over building a flow.  And individual show identity was killed by the desire to build an overall station sound.  All this happened over 25 years ago.
Logged
TheBigA
rimember

Online Online

Posts: 10725


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2009, 12:29:10 AM »


When it went to digital hands-off .. it was coffin nail #1. 

Why do you think the street MCs still use Technics turntables?  They still even do a slip cue every now and then.  That was living life in the fast lane baby.  Just don't try it with a belt drive.
Logged
HowardMBurgers
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 231


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2009, 02:27:03 PM »

Andy Barber and I used to have segue contests and we weren't using CD's or vinyl.  We did it with good ol' fashioned tape carts.  You can't pitch them up or down.  You can't start them late or where you want to (easily).  ITC RP cart decks with a Gates Statesman console and big knobs baby!   CD's are for pu$$y's and bad wedding DJ's.

The BigA is correct though, nobody cared other than those doing the segues.  Andy and I knew that at the time, but hey at least we were entertained!
Logged
TheBigA
rimember

Online Online

Posts: 10725


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2009, 07:08:37 PM »

We did it with good ol' fashioned tape carts.  You can't pitch them up or down.  You can't start them late or where you want to (easily). 

Exactly.  Carts were far more exact than vinyl or CD.  We had PacRecs at our place.  That's Pacific Recorders.  The greatest invention was rapid cue.  But we could hit a cart an it would be right on the beat.  And it wouldn't skip.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 07:10:14 PM by TheBigA » Logged
HowardMBurgers
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 231


Re: Best at stringing songs together
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2009, 07:33:21 PM »

Exactly.  Carts were far more exact than vinyl or CD.  We had PacRecs at our place.  That's Pacific Recorders.  The greatest invention was rapid cue.  But we could hit a cart an it would be right on the beat.  And it wouldn't skip.

I remember those..worked on a few of them.  They used a worm gear and servo motor to pull in the pinch roller rather than a solenoid and plunger.  The advantage was supposed to be less wow and flutter because of more even pressure between the tape and capstan.  It was fine until the little position sensor conked out and the motor burned out causing the main circuit board to cook.  Made lot's of smoke and panicked a few jocks.

Remember "Fido-Pak" cart machines?  Actually known as Fidelipack, they had a lot more sophisticated electronics to automatically adjust for phase shift as the tape aged or tracked across the head.  They actually worked pretty well if you used the correct cart with them.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radiodiscussions.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radiodiscussions.com or its owner or operator. In fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong. But they are opinions and this site allows us all to discuss those opinions. Any reliance on information posted is done so at the user's own risk. For a detailed look at the rules, regulations and uses of Radiodiscussions.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.399 seconds with 20 queries.