Tulsa Radio

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by billintulsa

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

KMOD is owned by them now, but anything of worth was around before clear channel bought them out. Clear Channel is famous for using 1 DJ for a dozen stations and dubbing in the occasional comment or weather report to pretend it's done locally.

How exactly do they do that?

It is a process called "voice-tracking."

All the music is, of course, saved in computer files.  Announcers (who can be anywhere in the world) are emailed the playlist, along with scripts containing promotional announcements, limited PSAs, and even contests.  The announcers simply record the music outro's and everything else he/she would say during a live show.  When the computer plays back everything, you hear the song, the announcer and everything sounds as if it were live and local, even though it was recorded as much as a week earlier from God knows where.

So, in effect, radio is pretty much automated rather than live?

[billintulsa]

quote:So, in effect, radio is pretty much automated rather than live?

I don't know that all stations in Tulsa do this, but probably the two biggest users of voice tracking along with mostly automated programming would be Clear Channel and Cox.  Even though this is just two companies, they collectively represent 12 pf Tulsa's radio stations (give or take a station or two).

More than likely, almost all of Tulsa's stations use automation to some extent (e.g. weekend programming to eliminate staffed positions).

[sgrizzle]

The two independents I know of are 94.1 and 104.5. 94.1 does some prerecording, 104.5 is managed live, but they will queue up a few songs then run to the bathroom or something.

[MsProudSooner]

94.1 has become my favorite station.  Lots of music and no mindless chatter.  103.3 is my next favorite.

[tim huntzinger]

What other formats has 94.1 been?

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Most new music sucks.

I think the last year that I heard actually good music on a consistent basis was back in the 1980s: specifically 1980-1985 and 1987-1989. Talent and style and image, you didn't have one without the other two. Nowadays, there really isn't much that I can say that I like, not too many people with genuine innate talent and not much beyond the gangsta image that so many are trying to convey.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Most new music sucks.

I think the last year that I heard actually good music on a consistent basis was back in the 1980s: specifically 1980-1985 and 1987-1989. Talent and style and image, you didn't have one without the other two. Nowadays, there really isn't much that I can say that I like, not too many people with genuine innate talent and not much beyond the gangsta image that so many are trying to convey.

I'd tend to say those years where generally a black hole. MTV era killed all the good groups from the 70's like Heart, Zeppelin and the Grateful Dead and replace them with Flock of Seagulls.

[marc]

Yeah, MTV changed things, mostly for the bad. I remember Christopher Cross, a fairly talented singer-songwriter who had hits with "Sailing" and "Arthur's Theme". Later I read that MTV pretty much killed his career because he was a big guy and didn't have the cool rock star look.

[tim huntzinger]

KCMA is the answer to me question, and later The Hawk.

Cross was EZ listening chick muzak in a hairmetal market is what killed him.  And I would rather hear the guitar solo from 'I Ran' on an endless loop while being gnawed on by wombats than hear Zep's Black Dog on KMOD ever ever again.

[mr.jaynes]

Flock of Seagulls, Duran Duran, and yes, even Culture Club-the music of the 1980s and yes, even 1970s music, it's all good.

[marc]

I thought the "grunge" era produced some decent rock music for three or four years, starting in 1991. Nirvana's Nevermind and its followup In Utero were pretty creative. The era also saw the popular rise of Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, as well as a number of bands with lead singers trying to sound like the lead singer of Pearl Jam.

The grunge era stuff is obviously not as great as The Beatles, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc, but it sure seems better than the stuff that is around today.

[charky]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Most new music sucks.

I think the last year that I heard actually good music on a consistent basis was back in the 1980s: specifically 1980-1985 and 1987-1989. Talent and style and image, you didn't have one without the other two. Nowadays, there really isn't much that I can say that I like, not too many people with genuine innate talent and not much beyond the gangsta image that so many are trying to convey.

Hogwash. There is fantastic music produced each and every year. Problem is...you won't hear it on the radio and certainly not on Tulsa radio.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by charky

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Most new music sucks.

I think the last year that I heard actually good music on a consistent basis was back in the 1980s: specifically 1980-1985 and 1987-1989. Talent and style and image, you didn't have one without the other two. Nowadays, there really isn't much that I can say that I like, not too many people with genuine innate talent and not much beyond the gangsta image that so many are trying to convey.

Hogwash. There is fantastic music produced each and every year. Problem is...you won't hear it on the radio and certainly not on Tulsa radio.

I must stand by my statement-but with a few exceptions. I do find some relatively recent acts as good at what they do. I must say I think that Justin Timberlake is posessed of 100% innate talent: he writes and co-produces his own stuff, he can sing, can play instruments, and his dance moves are all his (did anybody catch him on SNL?). Christina Aguilera: good voice, a set of pipes that can take any song and make it that much better. I also like Macy Gray, Beyonce and Outkast.

To explain my position, so much of the music found today has a very stale, corporate feel to it, as if it was manufactured and packaged rather than naturally developed. So when I find an act with innate talent and style and substance to it-the real deal-I'm all over it.

And no, I could never stand Madonna.

[charky]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes
I must stand by my statement-but with a few exceptions. I do find some relatively recent acts as good at what they do. I must say I think that Justin Timberlake is posessed of 100% innate talent: he writes and co-produces his own stuff, he can sing, can play instruments, and his dance moves are all his (did anybody catch him on SNL?). Christina Aguilera: good voice, a set of pipes that can take any song and make it that much better. I also like Macy Gray, Beyonce and Outkast.

To explain my position, so much of the music found today has a very stale, corporate feel to it, as if it was manufactured and packaged rather than naturally developed. So when I find an act with innate talent and style and substance to it-the real deal-I'm all over it.

And no, I could never stand Madonna.

If you stick to what is force fed to you by MTV...VH1 or typical FM radio fare...then sure I follow you.

As has always been the case...the "good" stuff ain't gonna get airplay.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by charky

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes
I must stand by my statement-but with a few exceptions. I do find some relatively recent acts as good at what they do. I must say I think that Justin Timberlake is posessed of 100% innate talent: he writes and co-produces his own stuff, he can sing, can play instruments, and his dance moves are all his (did anybody catch him on SNL?). Christina Aguilera: good voice, a set of pipes that can take any song and make it that much better. I also like Macy Gray, Beyonce and Outkast.

To explain my position, so much of the music found today has a very stale, corporate feel to it, as if it was manufactured and packaged rather than naturally developed. So when I find an act with innate talent and style and substance to it-the real deal-I'm all over it.

And no, I could never stand Madonna.

If you stick to what is force fed to you by MTV...VH1 or typical FM radio fare...then sure I follow you.

As has always been the case...the "good" stuff ain't gonna get airplay.

The corporate stuff will fade away; those with talent will be around for a while. I set my playlist, not MTV or corporate radio.