Pretty ... Raunchy

Every so often, I re-discover Linda Ronstadt.  She's one of those artists/bands that you forget about, and then say to yourself, "I forgot!  I should listen to this more often."

And then you don't, but I wish I did.

What a voice.  Heart-piercingly pretty, eye-wateringly beautiful, kick-ass raunchy.

And what range.  She was part of the countrified folk-rock movement that shifted American music's centre of gravity from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the late 60's and early 70's.  Then she rode the punk/new wave thing with a string of great records.  Then broadway, and operetta of all things.  Then easy listening, mariachi, lullabies  ... it doesn't stop.  I guess she figured out how to grow older gracefully.

But it's those late 70's rockers that I really love.  Fabulous singing, terrific production from Peter Asher, tasty guitar playing from Waddy Wachtel  ...  perfect.

And an awesome collection of covers:  Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Roy Orbison, The Stones, Neil Young, Mowtown, Elvis Costello, Warren Zevon.  Each one true.  Each one fresh.

I don't know who else is in the band, but when I go to that bar my first Saturday night in Heaven, I expect Linda Ronstadt to be the singer.

Variety (Part 2 ... or 3)

Here's some more arithmetic for you:

I have just over 4,000 songs on my iPod, which is apparently 11.3 days - 271 hours - of music.  With commercials and babbling, that's over 450 hours of music for a radio station.  Almost 19 days before a song repeated.

19 days on my iPod, 4 hours on the radio.  450 hours, 4 hours.

So why would any of us listen to the radio?  Sure, when we hear a new song and like it we want to hear it over again.  But every four hours?  To the exclusion of all the other great music we love?  Are we that forgetful?  Are we that dumbed down?

Maybe the bigger question is:  since they know we all have the technology, why do radio stations stick with the ridiculously short playlists?

I have my favourite artists and preferred playlists, so it takes me months - but I listen to every song on my iPod.  Every one of them.  You see, the 4,000 songs represent only a subset of my CD collection.  They are my favourites.

I have an older iPod, with a puny 20 GB.  The current 160 GB model is capable of storing 40,000 songs.  That's six months before a song repeats.

Even if radio stations wanted to play it safe and only play "hits", there have been about 10,000 of those since rock's inception.  They could still favour current and recent "hits" but have months worth of addditional material keep things interesting.  And that's just rock.  Imagine another 2-3 months worth of tunes crossing over from country, jazz, blues and folk?

Wouldn't that be cool?

Yes, by the way, there is Frank Sinatra on my iPod.

When FM Became AM Radio

I remember how excited my friends and I were when CHUM FM switched from classical music to album rock.  Now we could hear not just the commercial stuff, but the trippy songs too.  Now we could hear artists on the fringe.  We could hear experimental music, blues, folk, jazz fusion, hard rock, acid rock, and progressive rock along with pop.

And yes, we could hear more Jimi Hendrix and less Petula Clark.

Looking back, there was stunning variety on the CHUM AM, but at the time the main attraction of stations like CHUM FM was even more variety.

Then over time the formulas crept in, the suits took over, and the genres splintered and formed the base of separate sub-cultures.  The AM stations became all talk and the FM stations became Top 40, but all specialized.

Who decided variety was a four letter word?

A few years ago a radio station in Florida announced it was switching to an all Led Zeppelin format.  I remember thinking, "cool publicity stunt, but stupid."  I mean, what are we talking about, 120 songs?  150 if you count the live stuff?  Ridiculous, right?

Not really.  I read a while ago that the average radio station has a playlist of 36 songs.  Each week, they rotate 4 songs out and 4 new songs in.  So it takes around 9 weeks for the playlist to turn over.  If the Led Zeppelin station has used that process it would take 30 weeks.  Not bad considering you'd get hard rock, blues, folk, prog rock and straight up rock and roll in the process.  You wouldn't get that kind of variety over any 30 week period on any station out there today.  You'd get the same cloned voices shouting "you piss me off" or whining "you're such a loser."  Or you'd get the same song from the same artist you've heard a million times, and wonder, "did he only record this one song?"

With today's 36 song play list, you'll go about 4 hours before the songs start repeating, given commercials and babbling.  Hmmm ...  and if the Led Zeppelin station went straight through the song catalogue you'd go 13 hours.

So there you go, an all Led Zeppelin radio station would give you three times the variety of your average station out there today.

What We Need - Part 2

Do you know what we really need?

More variety.

I was browsing through the old charts from my hometown Top 40 station the other day, and it's just amazing the variety we used to get in the 60's.

Check out 1967.  Yes, we had The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Van Morrison, Procol Harum and Buffalo Springfield.  But they played along side Frank Sinatra, Tom Jones, The Supremes and Dione Warwick.

Or 1966.  Again The Beatles and The Stones.  Again Frank Sinatra and The Supremes, with Donovan, Simon and Garfunkel, and Percy Sledge.  Mitch Rider on the same chart as The Righteous Brothers.

Or how about 1965?  The Stones share the spotlight with Roger Miller, Bob Dylan shares it with The Beatles, who share it with Elvis, The Byrds, James Brown and Charlie Rich.

And look at 1964:  The Beatles on the same list as Louis Armstrong.  Chuck Berry and Elvis on the same list as Dean Martin.  My generation listening to our music, our parents' music and our grandparents' music.

Did I really enjoy listening to Dean Martin when I wanted to hear The Beatles and The Stones?  Not really, but I tolerated it, and I respected this other music.

And why shouldn't I respect Frank Sinatra?  He respected The Beatles.  Why wouldn't I appreciate Johnny Cash or The Supremes?  The Beatles did.

These days, all radio stations are top 40, but each station caters to a small sub-culture, and the variety is gone - not just in genres but between bands and artists.  If we even listen to radio, that is.  Because we can each retreat into our iPod playlists and musical genres catering to sub-cultures of one.

Where's the adventure in that?