The State of Rock Radio

[Billy Uranus]

I stumbled upon this article. Some parts of it are kind of boring, but other parts are right up my alley. I found the parts about active rock to be especially interesting, such as this bit:

Consultant extraordinaire Fred Jacobs observes that active rock is in “a really weird” place. ”There are points on the curve where active rock and alternative are very much in sync with each other,” the Jacobs Media president comments. ”Programmers will tell you there have been points in the past where you look at the current list for both formats and they are really not very different, but that has not been the case in some time.”

Not only are most programmers on the alternative side exceptionally pleased with the quality of new music they have at their disposal, they also enjoy the fact it is distinctive, especially from what is going on in active rock. ”There isn’t much to play in active rock and there hasn’t been much to play in a long time,” laments Jacobs. ”Every time stations do music tests, they do everything they can to get music from the 2000s to come through. Time and time again, though, not a whole lot of it does.”

Full article: www.radioinfo.com/2012/08/19/the-state-of-rock-radio/

A lot of times, I wonder why my active station focuses so much on older rock, and I guess after reading this I can understand it a bit more. There is always a group of listeners that are vocal about hearing the newest rock out there, but do they make up the majority of the audience?

[Pipa]

If rock stations were more adventurous and let what peaked in the 40's hit the top 10, there'd be no problem. Of course, that holds true to a lot of formats as well.