Book "Electronics of Rock and Roll"

moshkito wrote: vladan3101 wrote: What killed Prog Rock Radio? After reading several books on the subject, the best answer I could find is probably the one that Susan Douglas offered in hers: “ FM accounted for one third of all radio listening but only 14% of all radio revenues” in 1974.  I believe this is a falsehood, as in LA, at least 2 stations were top, and in Santa Barbara one station was top, and in SF there were a couple of stations that were up there. To my ears, it seems like typical mis-information so “radio” business seems much more important than the new music ... which of course, they were wrong about.

The 14% number looked low to me too, so I chased Ms. Douglas’s original reference. It is cited in the book, let me see, it was “The Upbeat Tempo of FM 1974,” published in Broadcasting, Oct.1974, p. 41, see worldradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/BC-1974/1974-10-07-BC.pdf.  Broadcasting was basically a trade journal, so I would tend to believe their numbers.

I never said that Prog Rock FM radio was not popular.  The first of two chapters on it chronicles its rise to the top, easiest to add another quote again:

• FM ratings soared rather quickly, blowing past what most AM stations were achieving in many geographical areas, not just in the Top 40 but in other formats on AM. The total FM listenership did not exceed that of AM until late in the 1970s, but AM never recovered from this onslaught – it took about another decade for AM to turn from being just uncool into its present sorry state, but it was done pretty much for good.

What I believe Ms. Douglas was saying is that advertising revenue did not follow the market share proportionally, which does not surprise me. Before the 1967 FCC’s “non-duplication” ruling, FM was actually in crisis, and the stations were closing. I am giving some numbers from the 1950s to show that.  Stereo and Prog Rock format probably saved FM, but once it took off, station owners started thinking about profits more than they did earlier in the 1970s. 

moshkito wrote: One last topic ... both electronics and progressive music NEVER DIED ... artists don’t disappear of the face of the earth and please stop that commercial idea that progressive died....

Not sure what you are referring to. I don’t believe I ever said that Prog Rock died (or Rock itself, as some claim). The book has one whole chapter that pretty much argues against that.

moshkito wrote: vladan3101 wrote: FM ratings soared rather quickly, blowing past what most AM stations were achieving in many geographical areas, not just in the Top 40 but in other formats on AM. The total FM listenership did not exceed that of AM until late in the 1970s, but AM never recovered from this onslaught – it took about another decade for AM to turn from being just uncool into its present sorry state, but it was done pretty much for good. I think this might depend on the place/area in the USA. In California, at least LA and Santa Barbara, I would say that the only AM personality that stood out and continued was Wolfman Jack. For the most part California was all about FM radio ... but now, we have to take a look at the smaller markets, that rarely, if ever, follow the rest of the numbers… The late 70's would be an incorrect assumption, because that is like saying that the Great American Corporate Rape, was what made FM come out on top, and that would be incorrect and not likely ...

FM listenership not exceeding that of AM until the late 1970s is a data point often mentioned in books and articles on radio. You can find it even on Wikipedia now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_United_States).

Many stations in big cities did reach top spots much earlier (including some mentioned in the book), and FM did disproportionally better in what I presume is our age group now (under 25-year-old demographic at the time, the article in Wikipedia gives an example), but it did not do nearly as well with older listeners. I would be grateful if you could point to some other reliable numbers. Anecdotal information is always interesting but will not be helpful for the book.

It's much easier to kiss up to the industry so you can get your book published .... oh well ... so much for knowledge, and the attention to it!

You have every right to dislike my book, but by now, I have a strong impression that you have not read it. First, you accused me of spreading falsehoods about FM ad revenue based on your anecdotal info about ratings. Then you accused me of claiming that the Prog Rock died, which is nowhere in the book. Now, I am kissing up to the industry to get the book published. That is just too much. The book is self-published. I have no connections whatsoever with the music industry for well over 40 years now, and I believe the book is as critical of it as any I know, if not more.

vladan3101 wrote: ... FM listenership not exceeding that of AM until the late 1970s is a data point often mentioned in books and articles on radio. ...

Hi,

That's like saying the market in Southern California is not valuable and there was no information on the stations I mentioned.

vladan3101 wrote: ... Many stations in big cities did reach top spots much earlier (including some mentioned in the book), and FM did disproportionally better in what I presume is our age group now (under 25-year-old demographic at the time, the article in Wikipedia gives an example), but it did not do nearly as well with older listeners. ...

That's possible, although I think that this is faulty ... the station in Santa Barbara, like many in the USA were subject to the FCC's rule about the 4-letter words at the time, and the listeners could be said to be younger, but folks that knew music, were also there ... and the TD concerts, and others did not have just youngsters in it in Santa Barbara, but also older folks.

vladan3101 wrote: ... You have every right to dislike my book, but by now, I have a strong impression that you have not read it.  ...

1. I can't afford to get it ... I'm retired and on a tight budget. 

2. Why would I be interested in something that is almost totally opposite the time and space I experienced from 1968 in Madison WI to now? The comments are specially sad in my view of things, because the industry survived, despite the attempts to put it down by the record companies and numbers that continually make the original FM owners just a bunch of idiots, although it was their ability to show new music that helped it all, and sadly enough they sold out, after so many years of scratching the surface.

vladan3101 wrote: ... I am kissing up to the industry to get the book published. That is just too much.  ...

None of those are meant to be an accusation but more of a question. I don't think you would write this book, otherwise, so please reconsider the idea.

And Gerinsky's comment ... mind you that the "instruments" were available at the store to everyone, just about (other than the colors!) and thus, they would not be the reason for the music ... the folks that played were the reason, and this is something that I find Gerinsky is not willing to accept in order to defend his book. You can go to any music store and get many of those instruments, and the same musicians used them for jazz and other ideas. Thus, the "instruments of ... " this or that, is a rather poor idea in my book.

It takes the credit of the musicians themselves out of them ... you might as well start saying that the clock maker (that invented the synth) is the hero, not the musicians that learned how to use it.

I'm simply standing for the musician and the artist ... and all else is not important ... they are the creators and folks like you and Gerinsky are "after the fact" ... and not very original, if I may state so, although I believe you are both (obviously) allowed to do as you please and believe. There is no harm, or bad intention meant at all, but not standing up for the art form, and the artist himself/herself ... is not right. They created the stuff we love, and the instrument was a medium ... not the message!