"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The
reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling /
requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.

The first top 40 station was KOWH in Omaha in 8/52. It played pop hits of
the day. It was not until the mid-50's that Top 40 stations added rock 'n'
roll, and they were nearly 100% consistent with playing 40 researched songs.
Period. There was nothing scandalous, as the target young demos accepted the
new music trends and no station that got a 30 or 40 share was "scndalous."


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew
nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.

and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I
have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so
I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.

There are very few commercail classicals left. Period.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and
arcane. Interference on first adjacents is irrelevant if nobody in the
interference zone listens to first adjacents. The principles of physics do
not change. It is the way radio is used that has changed, and there are more
than a few Luddites here trying to bring back things that died decades ago.