Forgive me for writing this post backwards, putting the conclusion at the beginning...

I think that Lee Abrams was a really smart guy in that he understood that radio listeners experience stations as gestalts. Thus, simply "moving" existing Top-40 and MOR formats from AM to FM wouldn't be enough to guarantee mainstream acceptance of FM. He correctly concluded that to maximize the chances for success of FM, FM stations would have to do everything differently from their AM counterparts--different playlists, different delivery, different structure to the format, different marketing--so that listeners would perceive the new stations as being something different and superior to what they were already hearing on AM.

Jimbo nailed it in another thread, when he said that the old AM Top-40 that 62kgw longs for was a "package deal." I think that as radio fans, we frequently make the mistake of analyzing stations piecemeal, focusing too much on specific aspects, when the audience doesn't do this. For instance the engineers will talk about the sound and reception quality of FM (or more recently about the near-flawless sound and extra features of Ibiquity's digital system). Some will talk about jingles and production. People who have sat behind the mic (including myself) will talk about delivery, who has the best sounding pipes, and "posting" songs. Music fans will talk about playlists, etc.

To turn this into questions: Abrams's attempts to make FM stations "feel" different to listeners than AM led to big changes in radio programming and marketing paradigms. What will be the next evolutionary step? Are we seeing it already on satellite radio, the Internet, stations running the "Jack" format, etc? Is my analysis of how FM became associated with music radio even remotely correct?

I got to work at one of the Lee Abrams "Superstars" stations back in the 70s. It was considered to be unique because the format was album rock, but it was run much like a top 40 station, with tight rotations and not much talk. I think there were about 100 albums in the library. The other different thing was the fact that we played Stevie Wonder, when many album rock stations did not. I did the weekly record store reports, where we would check local album sales. Stevie Wonder's album was up at the top, so we played a few tracks from it. Of course, many album rock stations did play Stevie, so it wasn't totally unique.


It was the "Hits" of album rock back then. It was fun radio, however the owner of the station was very lame (yes even back then we had some lame owners), so I exited after about 6 months!

Lots of good background, Alfredo, but the catalyst for these changes has a lot to do with the willingness of the automobile manufacturers to offer receivers at reasonable prices. At the very least that was true with the growth of FM radio at any format. When AM/FM radios became standard as the lowest radio option in a car (and standard on many), the growth of the FM audience skyrocketed. The same will probably apply to satellite radio as that option becomes more commonplace, although it's a little early to definitively know. Sure, there was some growth of the FM dial before that, just as there is growth to be seen in satellite radio when auto receivers covering that band were high end options, but my point is that it is just as much about user access as it is about programming. Programming is to some extent cyclical in its approach. Although the content changes, mass appeal formats today generally contain the same basic features as they always have.
Top 40 gave way to CHR, but the ingredients of that recipe didn't change. Same with traditional AC or pop-country.

Crediting Lee Abram's with creating a different "feel" is in my opinion overstated. The very nature of the AM band lent itself to uptempo music and delivery. Pauses on the AM were "dead air" where the noise rushed in and allowed interference to become annoying. Keeping the VU meter up was the mantra. The synchronous nature of FM allowed for not only a mellower delivery but the inclusion of music not suited for the AM. Having spent time in front of and behind the microphone on AM and FM, I can only say that FM formats evolved as a result of the characteristics of the band/mode, whereas AM format wars were driven by content. This is one reason I find talk radio quite annoying after a few minutes ... the hum and noise. Lee Abrams was right about a lot of things, psychoacoustic fatigue being one. But I wouldn't overcredit him for something that would have evolved without his input in much of the same way that it did. Insofar as todays landscape, it's a free for all. Broadcasting has become to a large extent, narrowcasting and even microcasting. There used to be a dozen or so formats, now it's getting to the point that almost anything goes, especially on the internet. When IP in the car is a mainstream reality, the advertising dollar will be fractured even more than it has become already. Huge broadcast owners are fearful of this next paradigm shift in listening/viewing habits and trends because they will lose market share and advertising dollars.

Amen Andy !

When Carly Simon got hot on the top 40 in 1972-73 her music sounded even better on FM radio. I dont know who did the most Carly or FM for the 'career" of each so to speak !

Some years ago, a regular Toastmasters participant was talking about using pauses as a speaking technique to add effect. He made a comment that went something like, "many people in talk radio are highly accomplished speakers. Yet, I don't understand why they never throw in an intentional pause to let the listener think about what has been said." Of course the answer has to do with what the radio listener might hear during that silence: interference or the background noise of his environment (car, work, the street, etc).

Of course, the biggest reason to not have dead air is so no one will tune to your station, hear nothing and move on!

This is true, as well. The radio audience isn't a "captive audience," unlike that in a lecture hall.

"Paul Harvey...(drive Mack truck thru)...Good Day?"

Actually a PD suggested to me early in my career that I pause instead of saying "uh".

"UH" is a terrible word! When I tried to make a conscious effort to minimize its use, I started to notice other people's use of it. It sounded like nails on a chalkboard.

I do that all the time. I just stop speaking in the middle of a sentence and then, start up again. It drives my wife crazy!

I refuse to listen to anyone who cannot talk without overusing "uh", "um", and "you know" all the time. It is too hard to listen to them.