Didn't Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy used to do ventriloquism on the radio?



PJ

RadioAaron wrote:

turkeytop wrote:

When a station applies for a license, don't they make a committment as to the type of program they intend to carry?

No.

I believe that back in those days the categories for licenses were "Pop/Rock - Harder" and "Pop/Rock - Softer", and as long as the station maintained their playlist within their designated boundaries, they were okay and not running afoul of their license.

I also seem to recall around that time that CHUM-FM was classified as a "Pop/Rock - Harder" station and remember hearing that they applied to the CRTC to add "Pop/Rock - Softer" to their condition of license, mostly because they were playing a lot of softer music with their baby boomer format.



PJ

RadioActive wrote:

I agree on Tom Mulcair. He's one of the more refreshing opinion guys in the media and I almost always make a special effort to tune him in when he's on. 

Also agree. Tom is good at giving objective opinions and assessments that aren't heavy with political bias, and that is refreshing to hear.



PJ
 

Binson Echorec wrote:

Ian wrote:

The Heineken 0.0 beer ad has the statement "must be of legal drinking age". Why.?

Best guess would be because it looks like beer? If 0% beer was allowed to be consumed by minors, kids would fill those 0% bottles with the real stuff.

Most de-alcoholized beers in Canada contains 0.5% alcohol, which is about one-tenth the strength of most regular Canadian beers. I don't know if it's the same in the U.S.



PJ
 

RadioAaron wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

Greg Brady paid tribute to him and talked about Oakley leaving the station during his 5:30 AM early segment. Still no hint of what might come after him, why he's leaving or how it will affect the line-up. But it appears to have been his choice, or they would almost certainly not have let him do a final week. 

Hosts and managers close to retirement age often get to control the narrative when leaving involuntarily. 

Still, it's as good as "leaving on your own terms" as you're probably going to get nowadays in the radio biz.



PJ

Ida Spencer wrote:

It didn't get much softer than this:

Mid 60's, before it was renamed CKDS after its owner's death: Kenneth D Soble.

"Coming up next, The Hallelujah Tabernacle Choir with their rendition of "You're Having My Baby"!"  



PJ
 

I always thought Corner Gas was pretty funny.


PJ
 

RadioActive wrote:

km93 wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

Me, too. It had a lot of promise but not a lot of listeners. 

Here's their original if short lived line-up. Some memorable names there.

Vinyl 95.3 Line-up

Actually they did have a lot of listeners particularly in Hamilton-I recall they were #2 in the ratings. Corus just screwed it up as usual.
 

If that's the case, I wish they'd stuck with it a little longer to give it a chance. It might have caught on before competitors stole their thunder. Certainly the talent who was there were pretty good. Some fairly legendary Southern Ontario radio names and a good signal into the GTA. 

I think another problem was that their playlist had gotten too broad. I generally liked that their playlist was wider than Boom's, but then Vinyl went off in some weird directions. They started off with a good mix of '70s and '80s music with a bit of the late '60s, but then they started incorporating more Oldies 1150-type of music to the mix, like "My Boyfriend's Back" by The Angels and "The Rain, The Park and Other Things" by The Cowsills, which sounded jarring alongside the likes of "New Orleans is Sinking" by The Tragically Hip. Like pouring gravy on a hot fudge sundae. Why they wanted to emulate the second-from-the-bottom radio station in the city was beyond me.

Then they started incorporating more CHFI-like music into their format, like Natasha Bedingfield and Adele. They swore on their Facebook page that they were still very much loyal to their classic hits format, but a few years later their listeners found out that wasn't the case.

A lesson learned in trying to be too many things to too many people, I suppose.



PJ

This is great news. My father was diagnosed with the same type of cancer, multiple myeloma, in 1993 and unfortunately passed away from the disease about a year later, as treatments were very limited around that time.

When I heard about Tarzan Dan's diagnosis and his plan to beat the disease, I wondered whether he was just being optimistic for optimism's sake, or if he actually had a good fighting chance of pulling through this ordeal with a clean bill of health. I'm so glad to hear it was the latter.



PJ

In some cases, the artist prefers the single version over the album version. The members of U2 are said to have preferred the "Temple Bar Remix" of "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses", the version that was released as a single in 1992. I myself prefer it over the weird, screechy album version.

When it comes to single vs. album versions, I also agree that it really depends on the song. Some songs you don't dare take a hatchet to no matter how long they are, like The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" (although somebody at the record company did, and the end result was horrendous). In other cases, some songs could do with some fat-trimming and maybe even a little spicing up with a remix to make it a little more flavorful.

Some may argue that the album version is "the way the artist wanted you to hear the song". But if I prefer the single, I don't really care...this is the way I want to hear the song! 



PJ
 

Then of course, there's the famous CHUM edit of Rough Trade's "High School Confidential":

What's the principal doing with her?
Who's that guy?
Is he ________ with her?
What's her perfume?
Tigress by Farberge
It makes me mmmmmmmmmmmm when she comes my way.  



PJ
 

You don't get much more '70s than that! Just stick an 8-track of C.W. McCall's "Convoy" in the deck, crank up the volume, and you're cruisin'. 



PJ

Also, it's "Nights in White Satin", not "Knights". I used to make that mistake myself. 



PJ

RadioActive wrote:

On Thursday, ABC is carrying the new season of "911," immediately followed by the debut of its new spin-off "911: Nashville." Nothing unusual about that - if you want to watch both, they're on the same channel in the U.S.

But that's not the case in Canada. Here, Global has the original "911," but CTV snagged the rights to "911: Nashville." Producers of the shows have confirmed they're actively thinking about doing crossovers between the two shows, once the newcomer gets established. It's always a good thing for ratings. 

But in Canada, that means you'll have to watch one channel to see part one and tune over to a separate station to get part two. Not a big deal, until you realize that, if they do a crossover, one show on one network will effectively be promoting a show an hour later on their direct competition. 

This kind of thing doesn't happen here often. All the Law & Orders and all the Chicago dramas, for example, are on one station - City TV. So two-parters or the continued storylines they frequently do on those shows are seamless for the viewer. Same with the various flavours of NCIS, which all air on Global.

Not so for the 911s. It's a pretty unusual situation and it could only happen in Canada...

The recently cancelled 9-1-1 Lone Star was also on CTV.

Actually, the Dick Wolf dramas used to run into a similar situation in Canada about a decade or so ago. The Chicago shows were on Global at the time and Law & Order: SVU was on CTV, and there were multiple crossovers that involved both franchises.

Also, IIRC, Law & Order: Organized Crime debuted on CityTV when SVU was still on CTV, and CityTV ran the debut episode of Organized Crime against SVU at the exact same time, even though it was supposed to be the second part of the storyline that began on SVU! (Confused yet?)

Interestingly too, 9-1-1 and 9-1-1 Lone Star only had one true crossover event that took place during season 4 of the original and season 2 of the spinoff.



P

I suspect if asked, a lot of people would probably think HD radio is High definition radio. 


PJ