DJ's are not allowed to just play anything anymore. They are given a playlist to choose from. This is why you hear the same few 100 songs all the time. The whole thing has become computerized, just push a button, talk over the intro and done. Sure there are long time DJ's still on air but their control isn't there anymore.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rock'n Roll Is Dead, Long Live Rock! :)
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, that says a lot, unfortunately. Who has taken these decisions in the US - the owners of the stations, or the managers? Why aren't DJs given a degree of autonomy over what they choose to play, especially in programmes broadcast at later hours when you might have a more discerning and committed audience?
Some of the most interesting music I have come across over the past twenty years came from the programmes (usually quite late at night) of those long term specialist DJs, playing unusual or interesting, or challenging music.
I agree that you are less likely to hear this sort of stuff nowadays, and see it as a matter for regret.
Overnights now is mostly automation. I think the main reason for the smaller playlists is ratings. Radio stations are fighting for earballs. With iPods and the internet people don't listen as much, so they want to play catchy tunes to pull in the listener and in turn the advertisers.
I think you could argue that it was technology rather than any specific social change that changed the position rock n' roll music held in society.
What we think of as classic Rock n Roll's dominance coincided almost exactly with the dominance of one particular mass-market music distribution mechanism: The stereo 33⅓ RPM long playing vinyl record album.The "LP". Which ran from roughly 1960 - through 1985. And I'd argue that it was the rise of this particular technology that helped create the great bands of that era. It contributed in some ways to the breakup of many of those bands. And its passing as the dominant sales and revenue stream ushered in not only new artists, but a new type of popular music.
Before the Long Playing album; most bands created their new material one or two tracks at a time. A "hit" for side A of the single, and a lesser work, or a cover of someone else's song for the B side. A group could go into the studio one day, get the song on tape after a few dozen takes, and be out on the road again in a couple of days. Their studio time was limited. Musicians would come up with new ideas in hotel rooms, during jam sessions, and show up with the bones of a song already pretty well established.
You couldn't do that and fill an entire LP. For which you need any where from ten to fourteen separate tracks. And you generally can't make half of those "covers." Going into a studio meant, for many bands, months of more-or-less monastical labor, often toiling under the direction of a producer highly trained in both the art and science of music composition and recording. It was this process, working intimately with band members, collaborating with the producers, experimenting and arguing, that gave us classic Rock. And it gave us the concept of an album. A musical composition that was supposed to be greater than the sum of its parts. Not least because people generally listened to (at least) one side of each disc at a time.
I would also note that the social strains of working cheek-by-jowl with bandmates ultimately led to the break-up of all but a handful of the greats of that era.
That all started changing in the early 1980s with the Compact Disc. For one thing, consumers didn't have to listen to songs in the order they were laid down on the album. And so the role of the album as a whole as a musical composition began to wane. Resulting in a return to the "hit" business model. And this process has only accelerated with the introduction of devices such as iTunes and iPod and (now) streaming models of music distribution.
Lastly I'd argue that computer technology has significantly lowered the barriers to entry for recording music. Any kid with a laptop and open-source software nowadays has access to techniques and effects that would have stunned George Martin back in that Abbey Road recording studio. Whether they really know what to do with those effects or not is another thing entirely.
Musically at least, technology both giveth and taketh away.
Excellent, and well-argued thoughtful post and I'm in full agreement with you.
I didn't mention the combustible interpersonal relationships in many of the great bands of that era because I didn't wish to get distracted by this, but, of course, it was a huge element in the narrative of groups of that era. Put massive egos, extraordinarily talented people, and some success together, and you may well have an explosive mix.
However, what was a significant difference was the fact that these groups - initially - had chosen - or selected - one another; by the 1990s, 'boy bands' for example, were being created for marketing purposes, and others were found to write their music for them.
Agree, too, about the seismic influence of the LP on musical production. In fact, when shellac was superseded by vinyl (in the early 50s) as the material that LPs were made from, which allowed for more robust records, and for longer playing records (many of the shellac records had turntable speeds of 78rpm, whereas vinyl ushered in the standard 33rpm which allowed for albums of greater length to be recorded.)
Its also worth keeping in mind the role technology has played in fragmenting the cultural experiences most people encounter in their daily lives. Cable and satellite television, for instance, now gives ordinary people almost infinite choices in their viewing - and ultimately listening habits.
Back in the day an appearance on BBC Top of the Pops or Dick Clarke's American Bandstand meant that, overnight, a significant segment of the British or US population got a taste of what was currently at the cutting edge of popular music. Middle-aged Brits or Americans may not necessarily have approved of the antics of the mop-topped Beatles or leering Stones, but they certainly knew who they were. But not surprisingly, a lot of those middle-aged folks - having listened to the music, started to quite like it.
There is no analogous weekly cultural event in todays world. An appearance on one of the late night TV talk shows gets tiny audience, and such acts are usually an afterthought. I'd suggest that in 1969 London or Chicago, there were virtually no 60 year olds who didn't know the sound of at least half a dozen rock songs. But a similarly aged person today has next to zero awareness of the current music scene. And because of the infinite entertainment choices available to them - literally at the touch of a button - they have no interest in changing that.
Get Sirius XM. I never thought I'd pay for radio but I can't live without it now. No commercials is amazing. I listen to about a dozen stations including 2 classic rock and one classic rock deep cuts stations. You can go days or longer without hearing the same song. Of course, they do have stations with narrow playlists.
Huge bonus, all the great NYC rock DJs from the 70s and 80s work for Sirius now. Also pretty cool, the 80s station is manned by the 4 original MTV VJs.
After the intro price, it's doable to negotiate a price of less than $10 per month. If you think about it, their product is perishable. It's going out whether you pay or not.
Long term, I wonder about the viability of pay-satellite radio services.
Streaming services, such as Spotify and Apple music offer pretty much the same thing - except they allow even greater fine-tuning to meet your specific tastes.
Streaming services, such as Spotify and Apple music offer pretty much the same thing - except they allow even greater fine-tuning to meet your specific tastes.
Sirius XM offers a ton of content besides music. Anything from kids to comedy to politics to sports to Howard Stern.
I can't agree. Nine Inch Nails absolutely pioneered new ground and had a strong run till the early 2000's. Linkin Park, the last rock band worth a damn in my view, is still going strong for the last 15 years.
All after 2000 though is slim pickings for rock fans. The hipster "indie" sound has been prevalent for about 10 years and it's absolute feces. HORRIBLE. Like I hate it. Bands like Postal Service, Fun, Mumford and Sons...it's all mega garbage.
Hey now. Queens of the Stone Age (Songs for the Deaf), Them Crooked Vultures (Them Crooked Vultures), The Mars Volta (Deloused at the Comatorium), Coheed (Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness), Nine Inch Nails (Hesitation Marks) among others have made great efforts in the 2000s.
I like The Strokes and The Killers during the 2000's. I thought "Mr. Brightside" would always be my all-time favorite The Killers song. "Shot In The Night" from 2013 surpassed it. Epic video and song!
Rock died when Cobain died. The spirit of it. Just like in hip hop. It died when 2Pac died or circa 1995. I loved early-90's hip hop. And overall pop music and love ballads peaked in the 80's decade and then started to become poor during the late-90's. I still enjoy ALOT of songs throughout the 2000's and now. But the replay value just isn't there for me. I can like a song from whatever genre and it starts to become tiresome after a week or month. But 80's? Man, I can listen to the radio with flashback 80's all afternoon, and I wouldn't tire or change the station as fast. They have the deepest karaoke roster for me and I despise karaoke in a continent that loves it.
1980's = better overall music, toys, more personality
1990's = less personality but better movies and video games
Rock died when Cobain died. The spirit of it. Just like in hip hop. It died when 2Pac died or circa 1995. I loved early-90's hip hop. And overall pop music and love ballads peaked in the 80's decade and then started to become poor during the late-90's. I still enjoy ALOT of songs throughout the 2000's and now. But the replay value just isn't there for me. I can like a song from whatever genre and it starts to become tiresome after a week or month. But 80's? Man, I can listen to the radio with flashback 80's all afternoon, and I wouldn't tire or change the station as fast. They have the deepest karaoke roster for me and I despise karaoke in a continent that loves it.
1980's = better overall music, toys, more personality
1990's = less personality but better movies and video games
Ha! Nice reference.
I'm a big fan of Jam Bands. I listen to several other genres, but Jam will always win for me.
Agree. I like listening to some of the classics, but I just couldn't see a band these days successfully making it. Music that is popular today (and I'm not talking about "pop" music) may not have been liked in the 50s and 60s.
Very true. I think Sirius has a station called "Deep Tracks" which lists itself as "Deep Classic Rock". I've never listened to it, but I do regularly listen to the classic rock radio station here in Atlanta, and it really is the same 50 or so songs played ad nauseam. I'd love to hear some other stuff.
Yep. As corporate behemoths have taken over radio, there is no more subjective mixing by DJs. They just announce what is coming on next and call it a day. Really sad.
There are a few Sirius stations who have DJs who are actually a part of the scene for the music they play. The Jam station I listen to has DJs who were the types who followed Phish or the Dead for years, and have all kinds of stories and insights to the music. Unfortunately, the station has decided that it's also going to showcase some really, really horrible Indie-type music as well, so I don't listen to it as much as I'd like. My wife listens to the Broadway musical channel, and their DJs are also people who were on Broadway for years and know everything about every show and every person singing.
I actually prefer to listen to stations with DJs, as long as those DJs are actually into the scene and have something to say.
Oh, very well said, and a heartfelt amen to your post.
Agree completely, and it is one of the reasons I listen to radio a lot less than I used to.
A fine example of great Rock 1987: Welcome to the Jungle, Guns N' Roses
When I first arrived at the Jungle Warfare Training Center (JWTC) in Okinawa Japan, upon our first sunrise we were greeted with this song playing over the loudspeakers throughout the base! Rock on!
'80's bands put the fun back in rock and roll but kept the lingering songs and instrumentality of the '70's.
Rock was supposed to be simple and fun but that idea was killed with the drug infused songs as tomes of the '70's
Rock was supposed to be simple and fun but that idea was killed with the drug infused songs as tomes of the '70's
Honestly I'm not a big GNR fan, but they had several good hits and this song really appeals to me with outstanding lyrics, structure, instrumentation and implementation, a treat to my ears.
Any particular drug infused songs that bother you? I'm not arguing for drugs, and don't want this to be contentious, but besides their destructive nature (when used in excess or addiction is involved) they can have a creative effect on a variety of endeavors.
My favorite Album is Abbey Road (The Beatles) full of nonsensical lyrics, but great music from my perspective when taken as a whole. Admittedly, Marijuana (in college) was initially involved on my end, but the album still resonates with me today without drugs. Grass really did have the effect of altering my perspective, and I look forward to the day I can sit down with a joint (legally) and watch Dancing In The Rain again.
Last edited:
Honestly I'm not a big GNR fan, but they had several good hits and this song really appeals to me with outstanding lirics, structure, instrumentation and implementation, a treat to my ears.
Any particular drug infused songs that bother you? I'm not arguing for drugs, and don't want this to be contentious, but besides their destructive nature (when used in excess or addiction is involved) they can have a creative effect on a variety of endeavors.
My favorite Album is Abbey Road (The Beatles) full of nonsensical lyrics, but great music from my perspective when taken as a whole. Admittedly, Marijuana (in college) was initially involved on my end, but the album still resonates with me today without drugs. Grass really did have the effect of altering my perspective, and I look forward to the day I can sit down with a joint (legally) and watch Dancing In The Rain again.
Anything written from about '68 forward
The band of that era that pisses me off the most is Pink Floyd
And that is one of the big reasons I don't listen to Radio anymore. That and the incredible amount of commercials that seem to happen after ever second or third song. Not worth it to me.
Dark Side of the Moon is a genius album that was on the charts for 15 frick'n years, 50 million copies sold. I owned it, but Pink Floyd was not in my group of favorite bands.
It would be interesting to know the methodology used to pick songs, some combination of royalty costs (are they all the same?), and the local market, what people want to hear?
I listen to the Classic Rock Station in Houston, Texas and in Minneapolis/St. Paul and have no idea how much control the DJ has, probably little. They do hilight different artists but the play list does seem to be limited, tons of LED Zepplin, I'm not complaining, but wish there was more variety. I also have SiriusXM in one of my cars which offers more, at a price. I'm pissed they charge per car, so I only have it in our traveling car, and I don't pay full price.
Dark Side of the Moon is a genius album that was on the charts for 15 frick'n years, 50 million copies sold. I owned it, but Pink Floyd was not in my group of favorite bands.
That changed my opinion for sure